Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by HoneyBear, Mar 27, 2013.
Does anyone have any experience or opinions about this lock?
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
My opinion is that it is a totally useless item. If you feel the need for a manual external safety then get a gun that has one. There's lots out there to choose from.
If you want to stick with Glock then just don't pull the trigger and it won't fire.
I have had them installed on all my Glocks for the past couple years. Never any issues. I like how fast I can disengaged the safety as its located on the trigger. They all have a nice positive lock and unlock. Plus if you decide down the road that you no longer want to have a manual safety you can easily remove it. Oh and be prepared for a little flaming. I don't know what it is about firearms. But people get really opinionated on what type of firearm you should carry. I say find out what works best for you. Its your Glock.
Did you have trouble with a Siderlock? I assume your strong opinion is from personal use. Granted it's not for everyone, but for some questions each has to find his own answer.
I used one for a year and it was absolutely super. May put it back on my 19. Just depends on where I go and my comfort level. Wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who felt they needed the extra assurance.
If the OP runs a search on the part's term, s/he will find more threads on the subject than s/he can read in an evening.
My personal opinion is that the siderlock is a horrible addition to any Glock. The primary reason for my belief is that use of the siderlock requires one to violate one of the four fundemental tenants of gun safety, to wit: thou shall keep thy finger off the trigger until thy sights are on target and thou are ready to shoot.
I found it easy to release the Siderlock with the mid section of my finger as I placed my trigger finger. However, not everybody has XXXL hands like mine, so I concede you have a very good point.
I looked at LWD's page on the safety. It says it "Protects from accidental discharge."
Most here on GT know there is no such thing. Negligent discharge maybe, but not accidental...
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Few things are more comical than a safety that requires placing a finger in the trigger guard to activate and deactivate.
And those folks would be incorrect.
Firearms are mechanical devices that have in the past, and will in the future, not function as designed/intended. NDs are the most common, but ADs do occur.
Honeybear, there you have it. Those who've used the Siderlock like it. The "purists" who might change many things on their Glocks say it's blasphemous to add the trigger safety.
The posts are already becoming argumentative and off topic. Soon the trolls will jump in arguing semantics and why it's all Obama's fault.
MJB, Anger issues friend.
Naw, no anger here. The OP asked for opinion and I just gave mine.
To elaborate, I simply don't like devices that need to be removed/switched off before the gun is ready to shoot. I've experienced twice (though it was a shotgun) where I intended to shoot but had the manual safety on. Once pheasant hunting and once shooting sporting clays. This is a low stress scenario. In a life and death self defense scenario (high stress) this could cost you your life not simply a missed bird or clay.
As stated this is my opinion and YMMV.
Interesting idea. I wouldn't consider it because it is so nonstandard. Literally no gun currently in production works that way, so you're learning skills that have no other application. What's more, I don't see the need for it. Put your Glock in a good holster and it's safer than a Mexican carry Glock with one of these trigger button thingies.
It keeps the trigger from being pulled if it gets snagged on a shirt or holster. Why do they call it "Glock leg"? I would think that's accidental.
It's negligent to not check your holster for obstructions before re-holstering.
Which is exactly how you deactivate the OEM Glock safety. Just stick that old finger in there on the trigger, and deactivate the safety while pulling the trigger!! It goes Bang!!! Intended or not!
That is why so many who own Glocks, like me, still would rather have a Glock with a manual safety. In my opinion, a Glock striker fired pistol has no safety against most of the accidental firing possible causes, except against maybe being dropped. However, for me, if it is a hammer fired pistol, such as is my Sig 229, then no manual safety needed for my comfort.
But, to each their own opinions!
Dang, everytime I come up with a good answer somebody has beat me to it! Need to get a faster brain.
But as stated above, Glock has 3 safeties, but you have to pull the trigger to release them. There's also a more conventional external safety that can be added.
But a question. People talk about changing barrels, sights, springs, 25 cent trigger job, trigger connectors, and so on forever. I'd guess very few Glocks are completely stock. Why does only the idea of adding a safety bring up such strong feelings?
I don't have strong feelings about other people cutting into their Glocks and adding a thumb safety. I do feel strongly that it will never happen to any of mine.
Because the anti-firearm crowd has been dumping on the safety-less Glock for so long we believe that adding an external applied safety to a Glock somehow validates what they have been saying.