Glock Safety

[otasan56]

Here are the pics of my Otapin

Didn't work!!!!!!!!

 

[otasan56]

The Otapin Safety For Your Glock

The darn photos still didn't show here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[otasan56]

A LINK to photos of the Otapin

http://glocktalk.com/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=17430&title=otapin&cat=6

Finally, something works!

 

[thefamcnaj]

I've been carrying glock 27 a while in a rotation with a glock 30 and xdsc 9mm. The glocks have never went bang unless I wanted them to. I carry iwb with the g27 on my appendix. Its in a sturdy form fitted holster. How ever I never reholster the weapin in my pants. I remove the holster place gun in holster and then holster back iwb.
I've dropped my 27 once at the range with one in the pipe and nothing happend. I feel quite comfortable with the internal glock saftey mecs.
That said I treat them with respect and in return have no problems out of them.
There are some people who don't respect them and have trouble. My best friend comes to mind. He carries a g36 with a clip on the slide. and just clips it in his pants, with no holster. He's never had a nd but imoh he's asking for trouble.

 

[Skribs]

Does that thing flap around when firing? I'd be worried about it getting stuck in the "safe" position during recoil and screwing me up in a gunfight.

How easy is it to deactivate the safety on the draw?

IMO, you'd be better off keeping a round unchambered than using that pin. It looks like something you would find on http://thereifixedit.failblog.com/. You would be much better served with either a Glock with no manual safety, or - if you ABSOLUTELY must have one - an M&P with factory safety installed.

 

[CWL]

It looks interesting, definitely very easy to use ... however... I don't think it better than if a pistol was kept in a holster until ready to fire. Since most people keep their pistol in a holster, I don't see any added benefit or security, actually might be a problem if you need to draw and fire one-handed.

And for those who do not like to keep their loaded pistols holstered, I don't think they are the types to think about safety anyway.

 

[jackpinesavages]

Over the years there have been concerns with uninformed and untrained folks suing forearms of all sorts. Got a PM pic for that?

 

[otasan56]

Yes, I agree that a holstered Glock will not fire by itelf. But, like it or not, criminals still try to get an LEO's Glock pistol in it's holster during a scuffle. The Otapin could likely save the LEO's life by keeping the criminal from firing the Glock at its owner. While the criminal is wondering why the Glock won't fire, the owner can be banging him on the neck or even head with a Maglight, or spraying OC into the gun-grabber's eyes. Also, on another front, the Otapin advertises to all viewers the fact that the chamber is loaded. No need to jack the slide back and disturb things, just know that the chamber is loaded. The Otapin has the capability to save lives and embarassment. Just look at the pictures provided above in my link (Post No. 53). The Otapin doesn't look to intrusive, right? I am wearing my G17 right now in a Bianchi 4 holster, with my 1995 Otapin still in. IT WORKS!

 

[brickeyee]

Glocks have three safeties. They have a trigger safety, a firing pin safety and a drop safety.

Also, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. All firearm discharges are either on purpose or negligent.

Is a negligent discharge less dangerous?

 

[4thHorseman]

The only real "safety" is between your ears. All the rest are optional accessories.

Many replys are similiar to this one.
My question is, if this was the truly the case why do the rest of the gun world top gun makers have manual safeties, including the 1911, bolt action rifles, M-4 rifle, berettas, and thousands more. Is it because only Glock people are smart enough to operate a gun?, Is the rest of the gun world needlessly placing safeties on guns when

The only real "safety" is between your ears.

Maybe the word "safety" means in this text, just incase an accident happens by pulling the trigger on a Glock which may cause a discharge, the gun will have a safe mechanical means to prevent the discharge of the weapon. Maybe that is why they call it an accident which results in an accidental discharge. You know, kinda like seat belts in a car incase a car gets involved in an accident, guards on power tools, just in case an accident happens and someone does not lose a few fingers, etc. One could agrue if you drive a car correctly, these safey items are not needed. The safety driving of a car is between your ears. Power tools should not be guarded because their safety is between the operators ears,. This arguement would not likely hold up in a law suit in court however.
Maybe safety means when a trigger is pulled a mechanism prevent the action from taking place. No safety means, when a trigger is pulled the weapon will discharge.

Just thought I would ask? It is also amazing to me that when anyone asks about installing an additional safety in order so they believe will bring the level of safety up to a minimum standard others pounch on them and lambast their ideas.
I say if they want to put a safety on a weapon, it should be their decission and that is where it stands, they are the ones that have to feel safe using the weapon. Just some thoughts

 

[trex1310]

Google "1911 accidental discharges" and see the number of hits you
receive. Apparently, the presence of a "safety" is no guarantee against
shooting yourself or someone else. A gun with or without a safety in
the hands of an idiot is an accident waiting to happen.

 

[trex1310]

If you want a safety on your Glock, have one installed, otherwise don't
buy a Glock. If you do buy a Glock quit griping about it. Simple isn't it?

 

[ET]

My question is, if this was the truly the case why do the rest of the gun world top gun makers have manual safeties, including the 1911, bolt action rifles, M-4 rifle, berettas, and thousands more. Is it because only Glock people are smart enough to operate a gun?

No, it isn't because Glock people are smarter. It's because there are internal safeties in the Glock that the other firearms you list do not have. Glock chose to go with internal safeties, where as the other manufacturers chose the external route. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I own 3 Glocks and none of them have ever shot anything by themselves. The internal safeties work very well. How is that Rem 700 manual safety working these days. I keep seeing reports of innocents with bullet holes in them when the safety malfunctioned. Just saying...

 

[mortablunt]

Didn't Australia demand an external Glock pistol safety for import?

 

[jmstevens2]

My question is, if this was the truly the case why do the rest of the gun world top gun makers have manual safeties, including the 1911, bolt action rifles, M-4 rifle, berettas, and thousands more. Is it because only Glock people are smart enough to operate a gun?, Is the rest of the gun world needlessly placing safeties on guns

Well let's see, the 1911 design is 100 years old and if you change it then it is no longer a 1911. Plus it is a single action only gun. It didn't have one originally, but he added it in the final design I am told. Don't know, wasn't there.
Bolt action rifles, M-4s, etc are rifles and cannot be holstered to protect the trigger from being bumped.
Berettas, because the Army specified them that way due to history of the 1911 and poorly trained soldiers. I carried one in the Army, and let me tell you we did not train on them much at all. Our primary weapons yes, not the pistol. And I was Infantry. We shoot for a living.

Glocks have a drop safety and double action pull (yes I know it is striker fired, but the pull weight is like the double actions). Hmm, any thing else like this? Hmm, oh yea, THE REVOLVER! Are you suggesting that we need to add an external safety to revolvers? No, don't need them. If you use a holster neither do Glocks.
Let's move on.

 

[Bozwell]

Not only revolvers, but such a comment ignores all the DA/SA semiautos out there that come with decockers (Sigs, CZs, etc.). It's not like glocks are the only pistols without external manual safeties. I think you just hear about more issues with glocks because they are so popular and there are so many of them on the market, rather than they are just inherently "more dangerous" than other pistols.

 

[ATLDave]

Bozwell, I spent some time on Saturday shooting both a Glock and a de-cocker equiped CZ. That first DA pull on the CZ is nothing like the standard Glock pull (and miles away from the pull on Glock with a lighter connector).

Glockophiles cannot have it both ways. You can't sing the praises of the light, short, and consistent trigger of the Glock as an advantage over the longer and heavier DA pull on a DA/SA hammered gun, then turn around and say that a hammer-down DA/SA is the same thing as a Glock.

The same is true of comparisons to revolvers. Are capacity and cost the only advantages to a Glock versus a DA wheelgun? I know I find a Glock a good deal easier to shoot fast with reasonable accuracy compared to DA fire from a revolver. Why? Because that Glock trigger is a lot easier to pull.

 

[Bozwell]

You can adjust the glock's trigger to be lighter or heavier without much effort. The same goes for the decocker CZ.

Glocks come with a moderately heavy trigger pull out of the box. As a comparison, my Pro-Tek comes with a ~7lb DA pull. The difference isn't that drastic and you can always add some weight to the glock's trigger. You can go lighter in the CZ's DA pull, but for a carry gun I think mine is adjusted nicely as is. If you choose to lighten the Glock's trigger, that's fine and I'd probably do the same for a range gun, but I probably wouldn't do so in a carry gun.

I'm sure some people tweak their glock to have a 3lb trigger and then carry it (I certainly wouldn't though). On the other hand, I'm sure other people set their glocks up with the ~8lb trigger pull before carrying it (what I would do).

I guess my point is that the pull weights aren't really that different depending on how the guns are setup. Shooting one of each gun though really isn't a good representation about how each gun can be setup or even how they are frequently setup for carry purposes. For instance, if you shot a stock CZ, I'm sure the DA pull was somewhere in the low teens.

To me it still comes down to if you want a manual safety, don't buy a glock. If you want a heavier trigger pull for your carry glock (a good idea IMO), leave your glock with the factory weight or tweak it accordingly to add some weight to the pull. But in my mind, the system is what it is and it's no more dangerous than any other firearm. If you aren't comfortable with it, don't buy it.

 

[Skribs]

Also, on another front, the Otapin advertises to all viewers the fact that the chamber is loaded. No need to jack the slide back and disturb things, just know that the chamber is loaded.

I still say holding the chamber open is inviting all sorts of lint, dirt, etc. to come into the gun.

My question is, if this was the truly the case why do the rest of the gun world top gun makers have manual safeties, including the 1911, bolt action rifles, M-4 rifle, berettas, and thousands more. Is it because only Glock people are smart enough to operate a gun?, Is the rest of the gun world needlessly placing safeties on guns when

There are also a lot of handguns where manual safeties are not included, such as the Springfield XD series and the S&W M&P series. Not to mention that I have never seen a revolver with a manual safety (well, some have that internal lock, but nobody ever uses it).

It also depends on the action chosen. Weapons which are not fully cocked until the trigger is pulled are safer without a safety than one which operates in single action. I'm sure you're familiar with DA/SA revolvers. A 1911 operates in single action, which means there's very little for the trigger to do. Something like a Glock is considered 1.5-action - it's only half cocked until the trigger is pulled, which gives it a bit stiffer trigger pull, but more safety as a result. That is why something like the Ruger LCP is safe even with no safety - it isn't cocked until I pull the trigger.

People also need to stop thinking that a safety will prevent NDs. I've heard of them with a 1911. Does this mean that we need 2 manual safeties? No. It means people need to remember the safety rules and follow them vehemently. Not having a manual safety I consider safer for KISS principles - no need to remember if the safety is on or not.

 

[ATLDave]

People also need to stop thinking that a safety will prevent NDs.

Nobody says a safety will prevent all ND/AD's. It will prevent some. Airbags don't always save a driver's life. But they save some lives. They are, therefore, still something that makes the car safer to use.

 

[Bozwell]

I don't think you can properly compare a manual safety to an airbag. The glock isn't without safety mechanisms - they just are different than, say, a 1911 has. On the other hand, there aren't different but still viable alternatives to automobile safety mechanisms such as seat belts and airbags.

Negligent discharges happen in all types of guns including those with manual safeties. People can and do mishandle 1911's and do things like shoot themselves in the leg during the draw, even though those guns have manual safeties. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how a glock, especially one with the 8lb trigger kit installed, is any more dangerous as a carry gun than any other firearm. Rather than blaming a particular system for being unsafe, IMO time is better spent figuring out which system you prefer and just training for that.

 

[otasan56]

With the Otapin inserted into a Glock pistol, the user will SEE that it is in. Pull the trigger, and nothing happens. Pull the Otapin out, pull the trigger, BANG. I guess that there are indeed people would have NDs and NDs even with the Otapin installed. DUH! :banghead:

 

[Skribs]

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how a glock, especially one with the 8lb trigger kit installed, is any more dangerous as a carry gun than any other firearm. Rather than blaming a particular system for being unsafe, IMO time is better spent figuring out which system you prefer and just training for that.

That's the point I was trying to make. Someone who has an ND without a manual safety is likely to have an ND with a manual safety, simply because the problem isn't a lack of manual safety, but the user. That's not to say you have to smarter to use a Glock...you have to be smarter to use a firearm, period.

It's just like when people try to blame guns for murder. The problem isn't the gun, it's the person using it. Same thing with most NDs - the problem is with the user.

Glocks have enough safety mechanisms that someone familiar with their MOA and who is paying attention should not have an ND. If it was possible to have a discharge while in the holster or while holding it with finger off the trigger, then I would say it needs a manual safety.

 

[ATLDave]

I don't think you can properly compare a manual safety to an airbag. The glock isn't without safety mechanisms - they just are different than, say, a 1911 has. On the other hand, there aren't different but still viable alternatives to automobile safety mechanisms such as seat belts and airbags.

I disagree. I think the analogy is appropriate. Cars do have other safety systems, such as anti-lock brakes. Glock's safety systems adress fewer types of AD/ND than an external safety. Glock's safeties will keep a dropped gun from firing, but will not prevent a pulled trigger from causing a bang; an external safety will, if in "safe" position. Anti-lock brakes will help prevent a skid into an obstruction ahead, but they will not do a thing if you steer into something; air bags will help you survive crashes where breaks are never applied. Air bags and external safeties probably won't come into play unless you make a mistake (even most car accidents that are not the driver's fault would have been avoidable with better situational awareness and reactions).

Once again, I am not saying that an external safety renders a gun completely safe, any more than airbags mean you can drive into bridge abbutments at 120 mph. They both add a layer of safety. Both have some drawbacks. It's fine to conclude that you don't want the extra layer of safety in the name of simplicity or speed, but it is not true that you aren't giving up something.

I generally agree that, if you start jacking up the trigger pull weight on a Glock, it gets harder to AD. I personally know nobody who has opted for a NY trigger or the like, though.

 

[Skribs]

Glock's safeties will keep a dropped gun from firing, but will not prevent a pulled trigger from causing a bang; an external safety will, if in "safe" position.

And if it is in the "fire" position when you think it is in the "safe" position, and you ignore the Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger rule, you get an ND. Hence why I believe the no-manual-safety method is safer - you never "think" the safety is on.