Glock with a manual safety

Not a chance.
To me, large part of the appeal of Glock is that all of mine operate exactly the same.
I don't want one that has a safety when none of my others do.

 

I like guns that have a safety for a good reason, like being able to carry a single action gun cocked and locked. But a safety on a revolver or a striker fired pistol that already has more than one passive safety devices just makes the gun slower to get into action and increases the margin for error under stress situations.

 

As an option, maybe Glock would sell more pistols. I know some people who are scared of carrying, or even owning a gun without a "safety". For me, lack of thumb safety on a Glock is not an issue.
I have a 1.0 Shield with the safety. The 2.0 version I got without the option. The 1.0 is carried with the safety off.

 

My feelings, exactly. The safety lever Glock added to its military design and after-market offerings for Glock aren't sized or easy access.

 

Yup, and it looked like if a larger ledge was put on it,,, it could snap off or sort screw something up if a bit of added pressure was applied.

 

Or until I'm struck by lightning, hit by a train, sucked into a tornado...

Worry is interest paid on something that may never happen.

Nonetheless, I don't want a gun with a mechanical safety. Period.

 

When Glocks first appeared, they were evolutionary. Lightweight polymer frame vs a heavier metal frame.

But now, there are plenty of other firearms built with the same materials.

If Glock was gonna spend time redesigning their guns, maybe thinner/lighter slides would be a better upgrade.

 

I don't believe I'd have any reason to buy a "new" Glock model adorned with the addition of a manually operated external safety, finding the requirement of manually disengaging this safety to be an unnecessary action during what could already be a tenseful or unexpected situation.

 

I think the M&P safety lever's size and placement are about right for a striker-fired pistol.

 

I think if you're going to have a safety like that you might as well make the gun a single action. That way you can have a better trigger.

 

I don't see the need for a safety on my Glock. If loaded, one of two things is imminent: 1) holster or 2) unload. Unloading preferably occurs on paper or steel vs. anticlimactic mag drop, etc. And for the third, hair-raising unloading option when time is of the essence - no safety needed.

Your question gets more to the matter of training and discipline. No finger on the trigger, no bang. A bit more intuitive to simply slide index finger from frame to trigger than the two-step safety-off, finger-to-trigger.

 

Folks who train regularly with a 1911 and have perfected handling techniques that prevent unsafe touching of the trigger under stress may do well with the single action. I don't train regularly anymore and my skill level is well below 'combat ready'.

Since I'm not ready to give up reliance on a handgun for protection in certain circumstances, a pistol like the M&P with a double action trigger and a manual safety is probably my safest semi-auto choice. A revolver is also a logical choice for my situation, but I like the capacity and other attributes of striker-fired pistols.

 

As much as I don't personally care for thumb safeties on striker fired guns I'm not opposed to them being offered as options for those who want them for whatever reason but I think that a striker fired gun only requires a minimum of training to learn how to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until your gun is on target.

I also think that with striker fired guns with a trigger safety, the mere "touching" of the trigger isn't enough to make the gun fire as long as you have at least a 5 pound trigger pull and if you don't feel safe with that, the New York trigger is available for Glocks that gives you the same margin of safety as a DA revolver.

To learn to safely operate a 1911 you need to do two things at the same time automatically: One, Put your finger on the trigger to fire the gun, and two, swipe off the safety. But with a striker fired pistol you only have to learn to do one thing reflexively and automatically and that is to keep your finger outside the trigger guard at all times until the moment when you make a conscious decision to fire the gun.

 

Your view is endorsed by most who attend this forum, SD trainers and prominent authors on the subject of SD training. I think, however, that real combat can cause adrenaline-charged reflexive behavior that overrides training effect.

While I haven't been in a life threatening situation, I believe most of us will find the trigger as soon as the gun clears concealment if we sense a deadly attack may be eminent. Thus, having a manual safety might prevent a regrettable discharge of our weapon.

I grew up with manual safety equipped firearms of all types, so I'm more comfortable with them than without them.

 

That’s overly simplistic. Plenty of Glock discharges happen reholstering when a piece of clothing or even a floppy leather holster flap gets in the trigger guard and when you push in, it goes bang.

No finger, but other stuff makes the gun go bang. Others may not care for it, but I do a lot of holster practice and I don’t have time to take the whole holster on and off for each course of fire.

So something like the Tau striker plate has been great to make sure it doesn’t go bang for some other reason. Especially when carrying AIWB.

 

That’s crazy talk.

It’s called TRAINING.

There was a time when you could not safely handle a pistol.

There was a time when you could not shoot for beans.

You probably still cannot shoot to your full potential.

The only thing that made you improve is.....

Go ahead.

Say it.

Say it...

TRAINING.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would vote no on a thumb safety. But I would vote yes to a grip safety. And yes, I own a XDM. But I like my Glock 19 better and it’s the one I carry 24/7.

 

I don't want a gun with a manual safety, or an ultra light trigger pull. However, I would like to see Glock offer the choice of a safety, like S&W does. I imagine that they lose a certain amount of sales because some folks want 'em, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

The simplicity of Glock's design may not lend itself to inclusion of a manual safety without compromising long-term reliability.

The Cominolli aftermarket safety doesn't allow for easy operation under stress because the lever surface is too small to be flipped off with force. Likewise, the lever on Glock's military model provides little surface for the thumb to exert much force.

Compare this Glock military offering safety to the M&P lever shown in post #30.