Glock modification - dumb idea or what do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not silly, sorry you need to read the human factors literature on NDs. It was found that some startles, trips, yips, sympathetic hand contractions and the like were enough to overcome the DA pull on revolvers.

Finger on the trigger is the causal agent as even the DA pull is not enough. DA NDs are well documented. You might argue that the rate is smaller but the risk with finger misplacement is still very significant.

The major variance is training and finger discipline. Those that try to substitute mechanics for skill are not making a wise choice.
 
I’m not taking about startle reactions with a gun in the hand. A safety won’t matter there, either.

Discharge during administrative handling/holster if is what I’m talking about. Revolvers and Glocks are NOT functionally equivalent. Particularly when it comes to discharges where the finger IS off the trigger, and something else has gotten into the trigger guard.
 
I would welcome an aftermarket mfg. making/selling a trigger kit to convert the glock type guns to a long trigger pull that mimics a double action revolver.
All Kahrs are like that from the factory and they sell 'em.
All the striker fired guns I have shot are all over the place different, different/varying amounts of take-up stroke length, at different applied pressures for take-up and break.

I would take a trigger pull that had some initial resistance upon contact to verify trigger contact and had an increasing resistance over some standard length of travel before the shot breaks.
If what I have described is what is considered a double action revolver function so be it, I'd be happy with a trigger like that.
I know this thread is about carry guns but when I change guns at the range I have to think about how it's trigger functions and usually dry fire it a couple of times to refresh my memory.
When I carry it's always a Kahr because of how it's trigger works. :scrutiny:
If all my other guns had a Kahr like trigger/no safety or I could be converted, I'd be doing that.
I apologize for posting this if it's considered irrelevant/drift,
:D
 
I would welcome an aftermarket mfg. making/selling a trigger kit to convert the glock type guns to a long trigger pull that mimics a double action revolver.
All Kahrs are like that from the factory and they sell 'em.
All the striker fired guns I have shot are all over the place different, different/varying amounts of take-up stroke length, at different applied pressures for take-up and break.

I would take a trigger pull that had some initial resistance upon contact to verify trigger contact and had an increasing resistance over some standard length of travel before the shot breaks.
If what I have described is what is considered a double action revolver function so be it, I'd be happy with a trigger like that.
I know this thread is about carry guns but when I change guns at the range I have to think about how it's trigger functions and usually dry fire it a couple of times to refresh my memory.
When I carry it's always a Kahr because of how it's trigger works. :scrutiny:
If all my other guns had a Kahr like trigger/no safety or I could be converted, I'd be doing that.
I apologize for posting this if it's considered irrelevant/drift,
:D

Might want to track down a Sig P250 then, sounds like it might be up your alley
 
Though I would never say that Glock pistols are intrinsically unsafe, I do believe that they are "less forgiving" than are some other designs and configurations if gun-handling safety protocols are not strictly followed (which, of course, is no excuse for an nd if gun safety is not practiced). I don't have any empirical evidence to support my belief but I suspect if one were able to do the research, it would be determined that Glock pistols and their ilk are involved in a greater percentage of negligent/accidental discharges (and not just because there are more of them but on a "per capita" basis) than, say, typical da/sa pistols, whether or not they have safeties. Just a guess, folks, but I also suspect that striker-fired pistols equipped with grip safeties, ala Springfield XDs, would also be less liable to be involved in negligent discharge incidents.
 
Last edited:
Might want to track down a Sig P250 then, sounds like it might be up your alley
Thanks for the tip on the sig.
I'm not a fan of any of the DAO autos that are available now or in the past and interested in a "conversion kit" for the guns I have (one's a Glock :uhoh:).
I think that "kit" would sell simply because of all the Glocks out there.
:thumbup:
 
All about holster and draw. I pocket carried a Glock 42 before I moved (never transferred permit) and the big thing for me was being able to carry and draw with the trigger covered until the gun was out. Finger pointed same direction as barrel rises the holster as the gun is drawn. As the trigger clears leather the finger drops to riding the trigger guard just as the gun clears pocket. Practicing a draw, that was my cue to curl my finger and get into the trigger guard whenever my finger touched the gun because that meant I was clear and coming up into shooting position. Train well, pick a good holster and avoid the manual safety.
 
I think one is much better off to buy a pistol which meets their wants/needs than to try to add a safety to one. That will cost you $90 (or more) while making the pistol worth less.

Also, I would really be leery of that added safety till I tested it a LOT as it could cause all sorts of issues. I wouldn't want to bet my life on said pistol/safety till I did a lot of testing with it and even then I think I would stick to one that came from the factory in a configuration I wanted rather than risk it.
 
You do know that a Glock has two other safety mechanisms other than the trigger dingus right? A Glock will not fire unless someone or something pulls the trigger. The trigger dingus is part of preventing inertia from a drop, and incidental contact to the main trigger shoe from activating the firing pin. That is only one of the 3 part safety on a Glock.

You do know that ALL of the safety mechanisms in a Glock are disabled as soon as anything presses lightly on that finger dingus, right? The internal safeties only prevent an accidental discharge if the gun is dropped.
 
I still wonder about all those revolvers without manual safeties, why is that?

How many accidental discharges occur from a long and heavy double action trigger pulls of 8+ pounds.
Uh, none. Comparing DA revolvers to Glocks is comparing apples and oranges.
 
If a manual safety is not required on guns then perhaps we should just remove or disable them on all of our other firearms.

Not really sure of the motivation behind this exaggeration. No one said a safety isn't needed on any gun. If you don't like them, that's fine. There's lots of options out there.

Motivation? Do you suspect an anti-Glock conspiracy?

But, since you agree that manual safeties ARE needed on other guns, then why are they not needed on Glocks?
I suspect that if Glock had included a manual safety in his original design, we would not be having this discussion at all.
It seems to me that it's a more a case of rationalization and justification by fiercely loyal fans:
"Since Glocks must be a perfect design, and since Glocks do not have manual safeties, then therefore manual safeties on Glocks and other striker-fired polymer pistols must be unnecessary."
 
Motivation? Do you suspect an anti-Glock conspiracy?

But, since you agree that manual safeties ARE needed on other guns, then why are they not needed on Glocks?
I suspect that if Glock had included a manual safety in his original design, we would not be having this discussion at all.
It seems to me that it's a more a case of rationalization and justification by fiercely loyal fans:
"Since Glocks must be a perfect design, and since Glocks do not have manual safeties, then therefore manual safeties on Glocks and other striker-fired polymer pistols must be unnecessary."

LOL.
 
Motivation? Do you suspect an anti-Glock conspiracy?

But, since you agree that manual safeties ARE needed on other guns, then why are they not needed on Glocks?
I suspect that if Glock had included a manual safety in his original design, we would not be having this discussion at all.
It seems to me that it's a more a case of rationalization and justification by fiercely loyal fans:
"Since Glocks must be a perfect design, and since Glocks do not have manual safeties, then therefore manual safeties on Glocks and other striker-fired polymer pistols must be unnecessary."
I don’t own any Glocks. I don’t like them. So no.........

There’s a big difference between different trigger systems. Some make an external safety a good idea. Others don’t really need one in some people’s opinions. A good holster is a key feature to carrying any gun safely.

I was just questioning what made you leap from that notion to implying that folks are saying no safeties are needed on any guns.

That’s a stretch is all.
 
Last edited:
How Does The Glock Safety Work?

How The Glock Safety And Derivatives Work Oh, how some long for the glory days when the 1911 was the first and last word in pistol safety systems before that new-fangled Glock safety system became so popular. Passive safety systems are definitely in vogue, which is why so many auto handguns have them these days. However, some wonder if they are as safe as a pistol that DOES have a manual safety. Naturally, some people aren't as convinced that a trigger safety is as good as a manual one. In truth, the Glock safety system is perfectly safe with safe handling, like any firearm. The Glock Safe Action system has three passive safety mechanisms engaged at once while the pistol is at rest, namely a trigger bar, firing pin lug and a firing pin channel block. The Glock trigger bar is attached to the trigger hinge. This bar extends rearward from the trigger guard, and blocks a firing pin lug on the underside of the firing pin. Additionally, there is a firing pin channel block. The firing pin block extends into the firing pin channel at a slightly offset angle, blocking about half the channel. The block is a cylinder and about one-third of it is machined to a smaller circumference. While at rest,the block extends down into the firing pin channel, blocking the firing pin. The net effect is that when the pistol is at rest, the trigger bar cannot be moved. The resting position of the trigger bar blocks the firing pin lug, so the firing pin cannot move. Additionally, the striker end of the firing pin - which contacts the cartridge - is blocked by the firing pin channel block. Thus, the pistol cannot be drop-fired or fired by any action other than pulling the trigger. When the trigger is pulled, the trigger lever raises the forward part of the trigger bar. This releases the firing pin lug and raises the channel block, aligning the narrow portion of the channel block with the striker. This allows the striker portion of the firing pin to move, as it is no longer obstructed. If the trigger is fully pulled, the striker sends the firing pin into the cartridge primer, discharging the round.. Continue reading at: https://gunbelts.com/blog/how-does-glock-safety-work/
 
Last edited:
Don’t forget that if you are using a Glock for carry that if it is altered, even for a safety, you could run into legal issues if a shooting occurs. If you want a safety, sell the Glock and buy a gun with one.
 
It really matters not how many passive internal safeties that a Glock or any other auto pistol has. Ultimately, they will only prevent an unintentional discharge if you drop the firearm, or if the slide is out of battery.

Most pistols, including the venerable 1911A1, have passive safety devices. These include a too-short inertial firing pin to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer unless it receives a direct hammer blow, a light pressure grip safety, and a half cock notch to catch the hammer if it is jarred into release without the trigger being pressed.
However, with the manual safety disengaged, ANYTHING that happens to press the trigger will fire the pistol if light pressure is applied to the grip safety. But once the manual safety is applied, even that will not fire the pistol.

The so-called fingertip safety of the Glock is deactivated if anything happens to press lightly on the trigger.
Worse, all of its passive internal safeties are also disengaged at the same time, and the pistol will fire.
This tiny finger lever serves the same function as the 1911A1 grip safety, but since it is part of the trigger, it offers no more protection against such an unintentional discharge than the trigger guard.
Most people understand this and this is why they claim that careful handling and special holsters are a substitute for a manual safety.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of "unintentional " discharges are really negligent. Let's call them what they are: negligent discharges.

Most can be prevented by keeping your booger hook off the bang switch. The rest by utilizing proper holsters and keeping them clear.
 
The vast majority of "unintentional " discharges are really negligent. Let's call them what they are: negligent discharges.

Most can be prevented by keeping your booger hook off the bang switch. The rest by utilizing proper holsters and keeping them clear.

Some are negligent discharges. Some are accidental. Lets not not lump everything into the same category in order to justify the lack of a manual safety.

The fact that "proper" holsters, meaning "special" holsters are required is an admission that a manual safety prevents both negligent and accidental discharges from holstering.

Claiming that careful handling completely negates the need for a manual safety is like claiming that careful driving completely negates the need for seat belts.
 
I would recommend against adding the manual safety. I would share that the FBI could have requested one, on the new pistol acquisition, but chose not to based on prototype evaluation and FTU research. Despite the treason from the senior leadership, the FBI at and below the Field Office are pretty well wired.

I hope this perspective helps
 
If you feel you need a manual safety for when the Glock is NOT IN A PROPER HOLSTER, then have at it.

Why do I put it this way?

Because there are a couple philosophies out there with respect to how and when a manual safety should be operated.

This is MY opinion...and I know for a fact that there are people who do not agree with it:

When I draw my Colt 1991A1, I thumb the safety OFF during the draw and presentation. My philosophy is that the only reason why I'm drawing my carry weapon is because I feel my life (or another person's life) is in imminent danger and I'm making my weapon ready for immediate use. "Immediate use" being defined as "place finger on the trigger and pull".

In this case, my Colt is in absolutely NO DIFFERENT A CONDITION than a Glock which has been drawn (because that "trigger safety" is not, in reality, a "safety").

THE FLIP SIDE of the equation, however, are people whose philosophy is "the safety stays on until I make the decision to actually fire the weapon". For them, the safety stays on during the draw and presentation and ONLY comes off concurrently with their decision to "place finger on the trigger and pull".

If you are one of the latter, then a manual safety might appeal to you and I say "have at it".

If you're more of a mind with my personal philosophy, then I'd say it's a pointless gesture with respect to self defense. For other uses of the manual safety, maybe not. So again...up to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top