Glock 22 safety system

rskent said:

Yep, a Glock is not like a revolver.


How do you figure? The Glock trigger pushes the striker back, and when it reaches its release point the striker is released and the gun fires. In a double action semi auto pistol the trigger pushes the hammer back until it gets to its release point, when it does the hammer drops and the gun fires. Seems similar to me.

Click to expand...

I get where he is coming from.

For the longest time, i thought Glocks were single action. When you pulled the trigger on a empty chamber, it was deocked. and the only way to recock it was to rack the slide back. Much like a 1911 without a hammer exposed. Then i bought one and realized the internals were different then a SAO pistol. (i assumed it was like a colt 1903 pistol with hammer hidden)

JTQ said:

Darryl Bolke talks about pros and cons of striker fired guns (and other options) in this "Why I like the LEM" blog article.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/8549

Click to expand...

Great article, especially the section that talked about actual high stress and natural tendency and reaction to place the finger on the trigger. A natural reflex like blinking your eye. I wonder how many folks that carry, actually have trained under a extreme high stress especially under and extreme chaos. My guess is very little.

rskent said:

How do you figure? The Glock trigger pushes the striker back, and when it reaches its release point the striker is released and the gun fires. In a double action semi auto pistol the trigger pushes the hammer back until it gets to its release point, when it does the hammer drops and the gun fires. Seems similar to me.

Click to expand...

The Glock Safe Action is neither DA or SA, but is much closer to SA.

If you were to pull the trigger on a Glock that is ready to fire, and the round doesn't fire, can you simply pull the trigger again and have it pull the striker back to release it again like a DA auto would do? No, because at that point, the striker has already dropped, and no amount of trigger pulling will cock it again unless you rack the slide. It operates just like an SA auto that needs to have the hammer cocked before pulling the trigger to allow the hammer to fall. The Glock needs the striker cocked, by racking the slide, to allow the trigger to drop the striker. Additionally, when you field strip a Glock you have to pull the trigger to decock the pistol. If it actually were a DA pistol, and the trigger did all the cocking, you wouldn't have to do that.

Think of a Glock Safe Action as relative to a CZ 75B.

Glock marketing, and many users, would have you believe the partially cocked, ready to fire Glock is in the same status as the CZ75B in double action mode with the hammer at half cock. With the CZ 75B hammer at half cock, the hammer is partially cocked and you complete the cocking by pulling the trigger. If all safety devices were to fail (no matter how unlikely that would be) the hammer of the CZ 75B at the half cock position simply doesn't have enough stored energy ignite a round.

The cocked Glock striker is closer to the CZ 75B in single action mode. When in single action mode, the CZ 75B hammer is back, but when the trigger is pulled, the hammer cams back further and then releases. That's what the Glock striker does. When you load a Glock, the slide cocks the striker back, but not all the way. Pulling the trigger cams the striker further back and then releases. The cocked Glock striker has enough energy to ignite a round.

<*(((>< said:

The dingus does serve a purpose as a trigger safety in some aspects as one has to depress the dingus at the half way mark and lower on the trigger; anything trying to pull the trigger at the top of the trigger or just on the sides of the trigger will not be able to overcome the dingus without serious force. But the dingus' main role is for drop safety like was previously stated, but that isn't it's only protection.

Click to expand...

Just try and pull the trigger without activating the dingus, as in a demo of how it blocks the trigger... It takes concentration and serious efforts to be able to put force on the trigger without deactivating the "safety". Almost anything entering the trigger guard would deactivate the dingus, and successfully pull the trigger 99.99% of the time.

I have a number of guns (non-Glock) with the dingus. Imo a totally ridiculous feature. Much prefer a pistol without one.

JTQ said:

The Glock Safe Action is neither DA or SA, but is much closer to SA.

Click to expand...

While it doesn’t have the second-strike capability that a true double action has, it sure isn’t a single action.

Well, I have never heard anyone compare a Glock Safe Action to a CZ75B. And I have no idea how a CZ75B works.

I’m not sure, but you seem to be saying that a when Glock is reset and at rest, the striker is pulled to the rear enough that if the safetys failed it would have enough energy to set off a round.
I assure you that is not true. If a round goes off, something or someone pulled the striker back, most assuredly by pressing the trigger.

rskent said:

I’m not sure, but you seem to be saying that a when Glock is reset and at rest, the striker is pulled to the rear enough that if the safetys failed it would have enough energy to set off a round.
I assure you that is not true. If a round goes off, something or someone pulled the striker back, most assuredly by pressing the trigger.

Click to expand...

There were enough instances of Glocks firing upon chambering a round without someone pulling the trigger, that Glock redesigned several parts in 1991, and replaced these parts on a few hundred thousand guns in what was not called a "recall", but a "voluntary upgrade" (yep, "safe action" Glock has always had a way with words... ).

So, YES, there is enough energy stored in the striker for a round to go off without pulling the trigger. Of course, for that to happen, both the firing pin block and the sear/cruciform have to fail.

When you look for cases where Glocks seriously malfunctioned, bear in mind that, when sued for malfunctions, the company's strategy over the years has been to go to court whenever they were sure that the owner had goofed, and give loud publicity to the results - while quickly settling out of court any case where they may have been liable, with monetary compensation and bullet-proof non-disclosure agreement. That skews the available stats... But then, while Glock has been accused of many things, being dumb has never been one of them.

Kano383 said:

yep, "safe action" Glock has always had a way with words... ).

Click to expand...

Yup, like "Glock Perfection" for left handed shooters.

Kano383 said:

Glock redesigned several parts in 1991

Click to expand...

Any chance you know what these changes were?

Kano383 said:

So, YES, there is enough energy stored in the striker for a round to go off without pulling the trigger.

Click to expand...

I was talking about chambered at rest, not dropping the slide on a round. For it to go off chambering a round the striker would have to be stuck forward somehow. I hope I never let enough crud build up in my gun that the striker gets stuck. But it’s not hard to imagen someone letting it happen.

Kano383 said:

When you look for cases where Glocks seriously malfunctioned, bear in mind that, when sued for malfunctions, the company's strategy over the years has been to go to court whenever they were sure that the owner had goofed, and give loud publicity to the results - while quickly settling out of court any case where they may have been liable, with monetary compensation and bullet-proof non-disclosure agreement.

Click to expand...

Isn’t that pretty much all corporations?

rskent said:

Any chance you know what these changes were?

Click to expand...

Here is a good write-up:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080604164428/http://www.thegunzone.com:80/glock/upgrade-faq.html

As you'll see, it was not a question of crud accumulating. My suspicion is more towards tolerances stack (the sear and the striker are on different parts, i.e. frame and slide).

Gee...all these Glock failures where the gun went off all by itself due to striker block failures...in one of the most used pistols in history...
Amazing that they are able to keep them all secret.
...Or, maybe it’s nonsense.

Just get a SA XD and you get a grip safety as well and a much better trigger!

There are passive safeties, which Glock has. There are active safeties which there none on a Glock

Kano383 said:

Here is a good write-up:

Click to expand...

It says what parts were changed and that the gun slam fired. What it doesn’t say is how the parts were changed. I guess if I want to find out, I need to dig a little deeper.

Rule3 said:

Just get a SA XD and you get a grip safety as well and a much better trigger!

Click to expand...

OK, that’s just crazy talk there........... Oh, hold on, maybe it will make me shoot like TGO!

I don't think it really matters what action you compare the Glock action, it's still different.
Noe, to the OP.
I have carried Glocks for the past 17 years as a duty weapon and off duty. I carried the Glock 22 Gen3 for a few years which was the first Glock issued to me, I own that Gun now.
Just get a good holster and don't pull the trigger unless you wish to fire the gun.
I have used Glocks in high stress situations several times and never had the gun go off without me wanting it to.
Enjoy your new gun.

This was posted earlier but I didn't see anyone address the comment made, below:

sage5907 said:

I can't figure out how a round can be placed in the chamber without racking the slide. So what you are saying is that if you have a round in the chamber the striker is more or less two thirds cocked..

Click to expand...

You can't chamber a round in a Glock (or most striker-fired guns and a few of the older (metal framed) S&W hammer-fired guns without racking the slide. But in these two types of guns, it's possible to have a round with a primer that doesn't ignite when hit by the striker or hammer, and you can't just pull the trigger again to take a second try. (It's what's called "Second strike" capability -- and these guns don't have it.

If the bad primer strike (or defective primer) happened in a NON self-defense situation you might -- with some models -- be able to reset the striker by pulling the slide slightly to the rear, being careful NOT to fully unchamber the chambered round.

A few striker-fired guns -- some striker-fired DAO models and a number of Walther models are (starting with the Walter P-99 and continuing, I think, through some of the current models) -- don't require slide movement to partially or fully set the striker spring. The Walther CAN set the striker that way, but the striker can be "decocked," too.

If I get a bad primer, I ain't wasting time trying a second pull...
I'm just gonna rack the slide and try again.
Just like I would with a 1911 or a 92FS.

amd6547 said:

If I get a bad primer, I ain't wasting time trying a second pull...
I'm just gonna rack the slide and try again.
Just like I would with a 1911 or a 92FS.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the discussion is for the benefit of the OP who...

sage5907 said:

... I have always used a S&W Model 66 ...What I like about the Glock is that the firing pin is always down and it is only cocked by the long pull of the trigger,

Click to expand...

In spite of some of the sideline discussions, we are explaining how the Glock is not like a double action revolver - that he is familiar with - vs the often claimed double action-ness of the Glock.

Forget all the marketing and treat the gun like a single action auto, and you'll be better off.

amd6547 said:

If I get a bad primer, I ain't wasting time trying a second pull...
I'm just gonna rack the slide and try again.
Just like I would with a 1911 or a 92FS.

Click to expand...

You'll notice that in the post to which you responded with the comment above, I said (here it is with added emphasis)...

Walt Sherrill said:

If the bad primer strike (or defective primer) happened in a NON self-defense situation you might -- with some models -- be able to reset the striker by pulling the slide slightly to the rear, being careful NOT to fully unchamber the chambered round.

Click to expand...

If your life isn't in danger, as might be the case if you're at a range, etc., wasting time with a second pull isn't a real problem. But otherwise, I'd not waste time, either. But at the range, why waste a shot?

jmr40 said:

There are passive safeties, which Glock has. There are active safeties which there none on a Glock

Click to expand...

There are external Glock safety options - https://www.cominolli.com/product-page/msk

Walt Sherrill said:

You'll notice that in the post to which you responded with the comment above, I said (here it is with added emphasis)...

If your life isn't in danger, as might be the case if you're at a range, etc., wasting time with a second pull isn't a real problem. But otherwise, I'd not waste time, either. But at the range, why waste a shot?

Click to expand...

Because I train to un-jam the pistol and get it up and running quickly.

I agree AMD, Shoot it like you life depended on it. If i happen to get a few light strikes. i rack the slide and keep on shooting. Pick the rounds up at the end of the session and reload them in the mag.

amd6547 said:

Because I train to un-jam the pistol and get it up and running quickly.

Click to expand...

I'll agree that's what you can and SHOULD do what you train to do. But, a dud round isn't a jam. And if your training causes you to turn your brain off and do things that may not be necessary or appropriate, you might want to reexamine your training.

In a life-threatening situation -- as might be the case in a real-world self-defense conflict -- you may have no choice but to continue as you've trained. But shooting at the range isn't a life-threatening situation and knowing the difference is important, too.

Walt Sherrill said:

In a life-threatening situation -- as might be the case in a real-world self-defense conflict -- , you may have no choice but to continue as you've trained. But shooting at the range isn't a life-threatening situation and knowing the difference is important, too.

Click to expand...

I think the short version of this is that there is not really any such thing as a "non-diagnostic response" to gun malfuctions. You always have to use your brain. It's highly advantageous to have encountered similar problems in the past so that your brain can recognize the issue at an unconscious-competence level of operation, but nonsense about always tap-rack-bang-ing is just that: nonsense. There are plenty of common malfunctions where that is not the right response.

Keep this in mind - Life happens.

Many combatants say the best of plans go out the window after first contact with the enemy - That's why we have contingency plans.

Optics/red dots can fail as they can be bumped and/or batteries fail - That's why we have back up iron sights.

Firearms/magazines can jam/fail - That's why we have back up weapons and spare magazines.

Strong hand/sighted shooting can be affected from injury and/or low/no light situations - That's why I train to shoot with weak hand/unsighted (point shooting)

Well, external safeties can be not disabled so your pistol won't fire - That's why I prefer Glocks without external safety for SD/HD.

Murphy always seems to rear his ugly head at the worst time ... That's why I like to eliminate as much things as possible that "could" go wrong.