>Glocks have no safety!
Four times in the last two days on two different forums. Someone designs a safety system that auto-engages three safeties every time you aren't firing the gun and that you can't manually turn off and people think it DOESN'T HAVE EVEN ONE.
That doesn't mean it's a safety. That means it's retarded. Glocks are all garbage just like the people who invented and use them. The only gun worth having is a Cz. Everything else is pleb tier dogshit.
Take your pseudo "safety" and shove it, putting a safety in the trigger is fucking stupid.
>in the trigger
I can only hope you're baiting and don't actually think that's how it works...
When people say "safety" in regards to firearms 99% of the time they're referring to an external manual safety.
You need to accept that there's a difference between the strict industry definition of the term and the colloquial definition.
I don't think I do, since pretty much every major manufacturer is jumping on the striker-fired bandwagon. Hard to just ignore that. I think both types of safety have a place in the world. For some reason, fudds don't. I don't know why.
Plus there's the simple fact that anything that prevents the gun from going bang when it's not supposed to is a safety. Glocks have such devices. Ergo...
>safety is your finger
>It was a Glock every fucking time
>mfw this was pulled straight from his ass
Their website has a good explanation. There's a fitting on the trigger that prevents backwards travel unless intentionally pulled. There's also a firing pin block that does not move out of the way of the firing pin until the trigger is further depressed. After that, further pressure disengages the rear drop safety. The firing pin is also not fully cocked until the trigger's movement cocks and releases it.
tl;dr: three internal safeties are disengaged by the full rearward travel of the trigger.
The really neat part is that the re-engage between shots.
It would be pretty tough. It requires a pretty intentional motion and pressure to set it off plus the pull is 5.5 lbs. Plus you could make that argument for any gun. Forget to turn your oh-so-safe manual safety on your 92 or 1911 on and have your hand on the grip and the same thing could hypothetically happen. Lots of people carry Glocks and other striker-fired guns, including me. I've never found holstering to be a concern.
>A former Los Angeles Police Department officer who was paralyzed when his 3-year-old son shot him with a Glock has sued the gun manufacturer and others, alleging that the light trigger pull and lack of a safety mechanism contributed to the accident.
Yeah, not the best source, but this shit isn't really tracked. Have fun finding real accidental death by manufacturer data.
How do Glock safeties actually work?
There isn't one. It's basically very drop safe and that's it. Anything to the contrary is marketing crap.
You cannot stop a loaded Glock from firing if the trigger is pulled.
Proponents love it because it makes it easier to pull and shoot. I don't like it because it makes it easier for ignorants to shoot.
Oh you found... one example... 1/10 for trying I guess...
>le Glocks don't have safeties may may
But that's wrong. I just explained it in >>28901896 and Glock explains in on their website >>28901904. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you don't know how it works.
>look up a meme
Solid argument, broski.
> Oh you found... one example...
What do you want me to do, link dozens of news articles? It would be anecdotal because I could easily cherry pick. There are no studies showing accidental death by manufacturer. I can't prove shit. That article, however, indicates a situation where a "trained" (probably better than your average asshole) police officer was shot by a three year old. Aint no three year old gonna know to take off safety or pull a double action, but it was able to shoot a Glock!
> But that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure I've shot and disassembled a Glock. The safety is on the trigger, which means when you pull the trigger it goes boom. You cannot set the safety to not allow a trigger pull, so there is no discrete safety. It's extremely drop-safe, I'll give it that, but it is not a safety.
>> Murders like killing because...
>> I don't like that because...
> literally "people like things I don't like."
Apparently giving sound reasoning means nothing, because I'm still disagreeing with you and clearly that means I'm just an asshole.
>I can't prove shit.
Well there it is then.
>safety is on the trigger... but it's not a safety
>equating murder to having a different opinion on a firearm operating system
> Well there it is then.
I was literally admitting I can't prove it because there is no data to use. I've been doing such for three posts.
BUT. You can't deny the Glock is easier to fire. That's literally the only advantage to not having a real safety.
> pick one
I only used the word "safety" because it's easier than "safe action system", which is what Glock calls it because if they didn't someone might actually have a real lawsuit against them.
My phrasing wasn't the best.
Better read as: Aint no three year old gonna [know to take off safety] or [pull a double action], but it was able to shoot a Glock!
A 13lb DA is way safer than the ~5.5 of a Glock. DAO is hmm-tier, because you get a heavier trigger all the time, but it's not heavy enough to prevent an accidental pull.
I prefer DA/SA exposed hammer. Safety optional. If safety then cocked and locked, if no safety then hammer down.
Yeah I'm not discounting that the guys was probably being retarded. But being retarded happens. Not even the high speed low drag oper8tors of /k/ are immune to just fucking up sometimes.
> Replying to everyone ITT
> This is what it's actually like fighting glockfags
Look, guys. I'm just pointing out some disadvantages of the system. There are always tradeoffs in engineering so please get your panties unknotted.
Plus, that nub-"safety"-thing on a glock trigger fucks up my finger after 4-5 mags. I'll take SA/DA and the complexity therein, thank you.
To be fair, it's not that fucking hard for a kid to disengage a manual safety either. The important thing is that ANY time kids might POSSIBLY be around, use a fucking lock or get a damn safe. Locks are cheap, and every self-respecting gun owner should work to get a safe as soon as they possibly can.
>I was wrong AND a Glock is easier to fire which is an advantage
>I'm just pointing out disadvantages.
Initially my ONLY point was that Glocks had safeties and fudds saying they don't is fucking dumb. I don't know why everyone has to start shit about Glocks being "unsafe" and then blame it on people who like Glocks, which, fun fact, are not the only pistols I own.
But every time it's:
>GLOCKS HAVE NO SAFETY
but they do though...
>GLOCKS ARE DANGEROUS
>GOD WHY ARE GLOCK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE?"
>A 13lb DA is way safer than the ~5.5 of a Glock
Not the other guy but that is subjective as hell. NYC police fired more than 80 shots and hit the guy once. They also have to have their handguns modified to a 12 pound trigger pull.
I won't deny that. A lock is really the best solution regardless, but kids are taught how to hold a gun and pull a trigger from the first action movie they see, so that's what they do the first time they get their hands on one.
You should try to teach them too, but kids won't understand shit about real consequences to their actions at the severity of cappin' a nigga until their teens.
On the internet nobody knows you're Mr. Skeltal.
All guns are dangerous. Glocks are more dangerous by definition of being easier for a random asshole to use.
> but they do though...
I'm stupid and can't use Google. Please find where it says Glock has a safety for me. Thanks.
Trips compel me to agree. I also said DAO is dumb for exactly that reason if you read the post.
Was keeping it neutral. Would you rather me go full-tumblr and start spouting shit like xe/xir?
I guess my counterargument to that would just be why the fuck did your toddler get ahold of ANY gun you own? Shit, you can't sue Glock because the kid's parent's a shit. The cop should be suing the family, but he knows there's no money in that.
>All guns are dangerous. Glocks are more dangerous by definition of being easier for a random asshole to use.
>I'm stupid and can't use Google. Please find where it says Glock has a safety for me. Thanks.
You said you've taken one apart. You know exactly how they work. Also >>28901904
A device that prevents the gun from going bang when it's not supposed to is a safety. Glocks have these. Saying that it is dangerous because it goes off when you pull the trigger is like saying my 686 is dangerous.
Glocks are more dangerous though, except it's from a different perspective. Their not more dangerous in terms of pure ND/AD, they're more dangerous to others due to the fact that it's easier than a DAO or DA/SA to get off a first shot. With a DA pull, you have to consciously put a fair enough amount of effort to pull the trigger to breaking point, whereas the break on a striker-fired gun is less on the first shot. This means if you have someong (cop, CC-holder, etc.) who is jumpy in a hostile scenario, they may be more likely with a Glock to accidentally shoot an innocent person out of reflex and fear instead of holding their shot.
I agree. Guns and not people are to blame.
>Glocks don't have safeties
hurr durr u guyz forgot about how u have 2 pull the middle part of the trigger at the same time as the rest of the trigger 4 it 2 fire!
I agree. I much prefer a ~3 lb pull on handguns, and 1.5-2 on rifles. Shit's gotta be crisp as a spring morning breeze, crisp like breaking that ice that forms over puddles, then the puddle drains leaving a hollow cavity underneath.
God damn. I'm getting myself all hot and shit over here.
You replied to the wrong person I think.
> A device that prevents the gun from going bang when it's not supposed to is a safety. Glocks have these.
It has several drop-safe mechanisms. Almost every modern handgun has a pin block or other drop safe mechanism.
A safety stops the trigger from firing the gun. Glock doesn't have this, because the "safety" is part of the trigger. If you're pulling the trigger, you're also pulling the safety, so the point is moot.
I also work in IT, and when someone locks out their account or drops a database in production, people don't die. You can't restore a person from tape.
Guns should be just a little archaic for the average person. A kid shouldn't be able to just pick it up and kill someone with zero effort.
It's not easy finding where to put the balance of being just a little archaic, but a safety has been industry standard for a very long time. I think abandoning it is a poor choice.
I'm not advocating biolocks or other retardation, just the same shit we've had since forever.
Your post was so ebin trol that Poe's law wrapped right around and smacked you in the face.
2/10 because I replied.
You think you're kidding. One time a woman asked me where her files were. I said, well where did you save them? She goes "you're the tech guy, you tell me!" pic related. It's me at work.
>If you're pulling the trigger, you're also pulling the safety
Yes. Literally the point. You know understand Glocks and why people like them so much.
You know when you hear an anti talking about how an AR-15 is a weapon of war with no other purpose but killing babbys and we should ban them and all 30 round assault clipazines?
Now deal with that level of ignorance but with computers. And daily.
Amazing that people are so ignorant as to pretend that a drop-safety is a replacement for a positive safety. It's not. The drop-safety features of the Glock are fine *but they are no substitute for a positive safety* which is what we're talking about when we say *safety* without qualifiers. The Glock just doesnt have one, that's a fact.
I assumed you were >>28902499 I don't know what's happening anymore. Fuck everything.
>safeties are only what I say they are and three sequential safeties are really just one big drop safety for reasons
> Yes. Literally the point. You know understand Glocks and why people like them so much.
That shit's retarded. Put the nub behind the trigger like a respectable manufacturer. It fucks up my finger and is completely useless other than letting Glock tell politicians that they have a "safe trigger system" when all they have is a fucking pin block and happy feelings.
Also the mistreatment of IT staff is real
> A middle manager was asked to update the phone intranet roster by a higher manager. He never consulted with IT before he started. When all the changes were complete, for some unknown reason he delivered a printed copy of the HTML code of the new phone roster to the web-master, and said, "please put this up on the intranet; the deadline is coming soon". The web-master asked, "Do you have the file in electronic form?", "No, I misplaced it and doubt I can find it before the deadline," replied the manager. Just after the manager left, the web-master grumbled about having to hand key it from the printout. A coworker turned to the web-master and stated, "well, I guess that's why they call it 'hard copy'."
>Please tell me how to turn on the safety, such that I cannot fire my loaded Glock without disabling it.
You don't turn on the safety. It is always on. You turn it OFF by pulling the trigger. Again, this is the whole point. It creates a firearm which cannot be fired unless you deliberately pull the trigger, but you don't need to dick around with any extraneous controls. If you don't like it, that's ok. But since it's a widely carried gun, it's hard to deny that a lot of people can follow this logic.
It doesn't piss me off that the trigger hurts my finger, it's that the trigger hurts for really no good reason.
Literally missing the point of a safety by astronomical margins.
Glock doesn't call it a safety, and neither should you.
Anon for Christ's sake, your finger is weird or something. Idk, man, see a doctor or some shit.
>Literally missing the point of a safety by astronomical margins.
I guess I must be because I can't see how having a little paddle to enable a trigger vs having a lever on the trigger to enable the trigger is super super different.
The point of a safety is to prevent the gun from going off by snagging on something, being dropped, or otherwise any situation where the gun is in your control, but you don't want it to accidentally fire.
What I feel like you're thinking, and I may be wrong, is that you believe a safety should prevent someone who knows nothing about guns (e.g. a child) from firing said gun. That is not what a safety is for, that is what a lock is for.
No, being drop safe means you drop it and it doesn't go bang. The drop safe on a Glock is the cruciform in the back. They other two safeties actually involve other parts and protect against other kinds of accidental discharge. The cruciform alone serves as the drop safety.
i explained a glock to my 50 year old mother and without even knowing the tagline she said so its always ready but always on safe
mfw when my mom understands a glock better than most people ITT
>there's no reason for the K-Frame to exist now that the L-Frame exists
>TV shows where the guy holds the optic right up against his eye but somehow can see anything and never gets scope cut
Can't even enjoy the show after that. Ruins my whole evening.
When you put a gun on safe, you're issuing a command that the gun should not fire until you take it off safe. A side benefit is nobody is going to be able to pick it up and bang without knowing how to take it off safe, but the real benefit is you cannot possibly fire it yourself without taking it off safe (even if you fuck up for whatever reason). Taking a gun off safe is explicitly putting you in a condition to fire (gives strong mental feedback), and an external safety is extremely easy to actuate if you're trained in the use of your gun. I see the lack of any external safety on a Glock to be a disadvantage, because pulling that lever back is the same motion as pulling the trigger.
Having rituals with your firearms is a good thing. Having hardware sanity checks in your rituals is very important too.
It has two drop safeties, which is fine. The third one prevents the trigger from being pulled unless the trigger is being pulled (wtf).
The "safe action system" Glock "invented" is one of the best marketing designs I've ever seen. Even firearms enthusiasts can't see it's completely useless as an external safety, and in fact is not actually an external safety.
There's really no reason for the L-Frame to exist. Retards were using ultra-hot .357 loads that destroyed their Model 19s. Instead of S&W trying to educate everyone to not use retarded handloads in their K-Frame they just made the L-Frame instead. Which would also let them to sell more Revolvers as well
All I'm hearing from this is "I need a retard check." And if that's REALLY how you feel, how come no one ever makes this argument about double action revolvers?
>Even firearms enthusiasts can't see it's completely useless as an external safety, and in fact is not actually an external safety.
The fact that it's NOT an external safety is EXACTLY why people like it. It's not that people can't see it isn't one. It's that people like not having one.
Putting your finger on the trigger is a pretty damn intentional motion, one that each responsible gun owner should have trained into their entire fiber of existence means "By doing this, I'm ready to shoot something". Therefore, the trigger and drop safeties eliminate most other instances a gun should ever accidentally fire.
If you're leaving your weapon somewhere that some random person or child can pick it up and fire it and you haven't first put a lock on it, you are not a responsible gun owner and don't deserve to own any firearms.
I'll give you that, when properly trained, the time difference between a draw with a manual safety vs. without is negligible, however, many people's mentalities, mine included, is "why even worry about it in the first place?" Especially when you abide by the mentalities above.
>Even firearms enthusiasts can't see it's completely useless as an external safety
But can they see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Except that wasn't the problem.
The way the barrel installs into the K-Frame was the thing, the barrel on a K-Frame is installed with a flat cut on the bottom to provide more clearance. This was a week area, which was beefed up on the L-Frame.
DAO generally gets a pass because it's cowboy-tier and the pull is really heavy. Plus if you unload a revolver, it's actually unloaded. Not so with dropping an auto mag.
As far as retard check, well yeah that's what it is. We all have the capacity to be retarded.
> Firearm check
> Drop mag
> Whoops, what the literal fuck was I thinking. Holy shit.
> Ra- nope, can't, safety off.
> Dry fire.
I've never done this, but I fear it. I've heard stories. I know my mind is prone to failure.
> Someone designs a safety system that auto-engages three safeties every time you aren't firing the gun and that you can't manually turn off and people think it DOESN'T HAVE EVEN ONE.
This is what I'm fighting, because it clearly comes from not understanding what a safety is.
Being drop safe is not having a safety.
If you cannot disable a loaded gun from firing with a trigger pull, you don't have a safety.
> Putting your finger on the trigger is a pretty damn intentional motion
See my first reply in this post.
>see first reply
Putting your finger on the trigger should be mental feedback enough. Hell, in a defensive scenario, the act of drawing your gun should already be enough mental feedback, and by that point the manual safety of anything else would be off anyway, so outside of the holster it literally makes no difference.
Realistically, a carry gun should have only two places it ever stays: In a safe/locked, or in your holster. Both of these virtually eliminate negligent and/or accidental discharge, the Glock's internal safeties just cover any other extraneous scenarios where an AD might happen.
>We all have the capacity to be retarded.
Some more than others. If you feel like you have that capacity, don't buy a Glock. Those of us who feel like responsible adults have a few more options, and that's ok. People like different things.
>If you cannot disable a loaded gun from firing with a trigger pull, you don't have a safety.
According to you, maybe. We've come a little way since the 1911 though, so you have to kind of accept that at some point.
>Being drop safe is not having a safety.
Correct, which is why the Glock has more than just a drop safety. Unless you'd like to argue that preventing the trigger from accidentally being pulled to the rear is a drop safety, which should be kekworthy.
Anyway, it's been fun, guys, but it's like 1:30 AM so I'm going to go to bed. Hope I don't ND with my scurry black Glawk before I wake up tomorrow!
In an idea world, guns aren't anywhere except a range, and nobody ever needs to get shot. We don't live in this world.
Working in ideals is rarely useful.
Realistically, people purse carry, pocket carry, Mexican carry, etc.
Realistically you pull without intention of shooting all the time. Gotta clean it and whatnot.
Realistically kids are still killing themselves and others because someone made a mistake. A small one.
Realistically you forgot the trigger lock or left the holster on the bed.
Realistically you tell yourself "Oh I'll put it in the safe in a minute, I need to take a shit and I already have my pants off" (guilty as fuck over here).
Realistically, an ND isn't if, it's when.
Realistically "Oh shit, there was still one in the pipe, but it was on safe and I didn't (I don't think) flag anyone, so it's /k/. Better pay attention god damn."
> Those of us who feel like responsible adults
That's unnecessarily demeaning. We are all fallible. Denying this is irrational.
> We've come a little way since the 1911 though, so you have to kind of accept that at some point.
Yes, all handguns of worth now have things like drop-safe mechanisms, which I wholly agree with.
Removing the safety is a step backwards. You aren't forced to use it, but having it lets you have a lighter crisper trigger without risking an ND.
> Unless you'd like to argue that preventing the trigger from accidentally being pulled to the rear is a drop safety
No, but it's useless design masturbation for marketing purposes. It's still possible to pull accidentally so it's not a real safety. I'd be willing to accept it as an actual safety if the gun could read your mind and know you intend to fire the weapon. Guns don't do this (and shouldn't unless the tech is 100% proven and reliable. Not 99.99, 1fucking00%), so until then you are responsible for telling the gun you intend to fire. An external safety is an explicit "intent to fire" switch that the Glock does not have.
>pocket, purse, and mexican
For pocket and purse, they have small trigger guard covers that you should use that you can attach to something in your pants/purse that pulls it off when you draw. If you're mexican carrying you deserve a round in your leg.
>pull without intention of shooting
again, rigors of training comes into play. A responsible owner knows to treat a gun like it's always loaded, and drop mag and rack at least three times before disassembling.
>kids still killing themselves
kids will still kill themselves by other means too, the key is to educate gun owners more on safe handling and storage
Honestly I don't have much of a response to this as I know humans aren't perfect. But if this is devolving into a general "guns are unsafe" argument vs. Glock safety features, then this is an argument that ANY gun owner faces, not just Glock owners.
>Lemme take a shit before I put it away
I shit with my holster on all the time, and unless you just come off an MRE binge no shit is so bad that you should ever be in a situation to have your gun lying about before you put it away
>ND is when, not if
not if we keep treating it with that attitude
>one in the pipe
again, human forgetfullness. I'll give you this that a manual safety "might" help here but again, if you're training yourself in proper respect of firearms and rules of handling then you should know to take your finger off the trigger when not firing as well as not point at anything you don't want to shoot.
I realize we aren't in an ideal world, what I'm trying to say is that rationalizing poor behavior and education on the part of gun owners with "it's inevitable/people are fallible" is asinine. Yes, mistakes will always happen. Yes, people will still needlessly die with guns. However, the arguments you are now bringing forth are gun safety arguments and no longer targeted towards Glocks. Therefore, you're basically saying the drawbacks to a Glock are the same as any other gun.
When people who know next to nothing about weapons or only know what they learn from vidya try to argue the specifics of actual weapons.
>continue to insist they're right
>continue to spout bullshit they learned from COD
>show them facts
>"Well you expect me to know all this? I just play shitty games. You didn't have to go full gun nerd on me"
Look if there is no way to prevent the trigger being pulled then yes there would be more of a chance of an AD/ND compared to a gun that can. I understand that the best safety is you finger but having both good trigger discipline and having a way to lock the trigger is literally more safe then just trigger discipline. I like Glock but holy shit I thought the Glock fanboy thing was just a meme.
Shit, just shot myself in the leg.
Glocks were originally designed for use with a rigid plastic holster as far as use as a military sidearm.
Now, maybe you share some responsibility for allowing your gear to degrade like that, but the point remains that a gun with an actual safety (an external mechanical lever or toggle) would not have a problem with this configuration.
Stay mad Glockers.
It'd be nice if everyone knew the fuck they were doing, but joe everyman owns one and isn't exactly a model of gun safety.
Telling him to keep the safety on all the time is easy for him to remember and follow.
> kids will still kill themselves by other means too
I don't mean to go full Moms here, but that's a poor argument. If we can prevent accidental death while still being able to effectively carry and deploy, then we should.
> guns are unsafe
They are. Glocks are more unsafe. This is pretty objective. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry them, just that you need to adjust your care to the needed level of unsafe-ness, and I think removing the safety is a false economy in this regard.
> not if we keep treating it with that attitude
What. That attitude comes from the same thought as "A gun is always loaded". Fear keeps us safe, always has. You cannot cure mistakes.
> Therefore, you're basically saying the drawbacks to a Glock are the same as any other gun.
Glock: The same as any other gun except missing a safety feature present on most other guns.
Also maybe you missed it, but you can't put a light crisp trigger on a Glock. That's a disadvantage too but I haven't been campaigning it because imo not as important as the pure safety disadvantage.
>posts one picture of a clearly retarded person's holster
>stay mad glockfags hurrhurr
>>clearly retarded person
I dunno, seems like it was enough to make some waves in the gun parts of the internet when it happened.
I wonder if this is the only incident of something like this taking place?
Are TTAG retards now too?
If a manual safety prevents the trigger from physically moving no matter how much force is put on it, this kind of AD/ND will not happen.
Weak compared to the fight >>28903408 was giving. Thanks for trying.
Light AND crisp.
Lightening a Glock trigger is an effort in compromises. I've had two people say "oh you gotta try this aftermarket setup it's so good", only for it to suck compared to most stock DA/SA or SAO. If it turns to mush to get to 2.5lbs, it sucks. Then you have a trigger at 2.5lbs that sucks, and you still can't put the gun on safe.
Kek. I was trying really hard to hide my eurolevel, but you found me out you sneaky clever man :^)
Really though, I live in New Hampshire. I'm literally advocating for external safeties and nothing more.
LAPD's "finest" double ND rates after switching to Glocks, including a couple holster incidents.
Number of accidental discharges committed by a given law enforcement organization over time is a statistic. Maybe not the one you wanted, but eh.
I'd say it's you who did poorly in high school.
LAST TIME ON THAT THING I POSTED:
> Also maybe you missed it, but you can't put a light crisp trigger on a Glock.
mfw everyone missed light & crisp in my original post. I'd rather it be heavier and crisp than light and mush, which is what you get from lightening a Glock.
Okay, so just so we're clear, the Glock trigger design isn't a problem entirely on the basis of how LIKELY it is to cause an accident, rather than the fact that it COULD cause an accident.
I'll bet you think the trouble Remington was having with their 700 safeties accidentally causing the guns to go off were no big deal either. I mean nobody was ever injured by one of those, right?
Meanwhile, there's apparently enough interest for people to have designed pseudo-safeties for Glocks specifically to prevent them from accidentally going off when you holster them and aren't paying attention to what's going on inside the trigger guard. Hmm...
Anon, I'm >>28901970 and you can't just do that. Reasoning is in: >>28902086
Kek. Thanks for the vote of confidence friend.
Stop m8. That kind of argument makes sense and is probably right, but you can't prove shit either way because the stats literally just don't exist.
It turns into "this is how I feel". The people on the other side of this are actually competent in argument. I'm proud of /k/, even if these Glockfags are wrong they put up a serious fight. And now you're getting blatant trolling from >>28903690 and >>28903698
I wonder why you feel the need to throw in an ad hominem every time you post.
US Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning back in 2004 for kydex holsters that could accidentally activate a Glock's trigger while drawing or reholstering.
"There have been eight reports of the Glock handgun unintentionally discharging when being inserted into the gun holster, and one report of a user injuring his finger when a Glock handgun unintentionally discharged while being inserted into the gun holster."
That was 12 years ago with a single holster that had only been on the market for... 2 years, maybe? Dunno, having a hard time finding the release date of that particular Fobus.
>to prevent them from accidentally going off when you holster them and aren't paying attention to what's going on inside the trigger guard
That's not an "accident". That's negligence.
Being a fuckwit is supposed to hurt. That's how you learn. Or, if you don't learn, it removes your defective genes from the population.
I will reiterate: a handgun with a manual external safety that physically blocks the movement of the trigger would have prevented all of these incidents.
Your entire premise ultimately goes back to "the gun will not go off unless the trigger is pulled." Glock's safe action trigger makes NDs less likely due to the interlocks and the fact that you must apply pressure to the trigger in a manner consistent with a human finger deliberately pulling it.
It's just there are things other than your trigger finger that can produce that effect.
A 1911, or an XD (if you hate yourself) would've just sat there inert.
So even if you could prove that (and you can't, so you just continually cherry pick news articles), your argument is "I need manual safeties to protect me from my own impending ND caused by my retardation when it comes to firearms."
That's the attitude you have to take when using a firearm.
Same thing with needing to defend yourself. Needing to draw and fire isn't if, it's when. If you take that attitude you train better.
This one's old enough to be legal in certain states.
"A Glock is a safe weapon, Cominolli said, but only if the person handling it knows how to use it. If the gun is unloaded in the wrong order, for example, a round of ammunition can be left in the chamber without the user realizing it, he said. With no manual safety, the gun will fire if the trigger is pulled.
"Even with good training, people forget," he said. "And guns are not forgiving.""
>I'll bet you think the trouble Remington was having with their 700 safeties accidentally causing the guns to go off were no big deal either. I mean nobody was ever injured by one of those, right?
There's a big difference between an actual mechanical failure of the lockwork and some jackass with a room temperature IQ absentmindedly pulling the trigger.
Throughout this thread you have been extrapolating user error onto the mechanical design of the firearm.
If someone is a moron and hurts themselves, well that's just too fucking bad.
I'm sorry Mayne I'm not being clear. When I say cherry picking, I mean you're Googling news articles that support your opinion and ignoring ones that don't. You're not literally picking cherries from trees. It's just that you keep doing it, so I have to assume you didn't know what it meant.
>That's the attitude you have to take when using a firearm.
If your mindset is "I WILL put a round through my couch at some point" you need to immediately sell all of your firearms, and then walk to the nearest ledge and throw yourself off of it.
You might be mixing people up here. I was the main arguer ITT, and I think we pretty much reached the conclusion that
A: Glock doesn't have a safety
B: I don't think that's a good idea
C: Glock can't have a light and crisp trigger (prove me wrong, please, it'd be nice actually)
Everything else came down to preference in the end, so agree to disagree.
If your mindset is "I WILL put a round in an attacker at some point" you need to immediately sell all your firearms before you hurt someone that dindu nuffin.
The mindset is for conditioning purposes. Don't mistake it for compulsion. Neither of us would go out looking for someone to kill, but we both train with the thought that it could seriously happen, right?
Since we're being completely subjective here, you've discounted every example I've found where a poor handling characteristic combined with the Glock's lack of a manual external safety has resulted in an AD or ND as being "cherry picking". It happens. The Remington thing happened too, i.e. the gun went off when someone wasn't expecting it to.
Perhaps we could compare an outright failed design (Remington) with one that has a handling weakness by omission (Glock)?
If it makes you feel any better I am equally prejudiced against M&Ps that don't have a safety, but at least Smith gives you the option.
Gaston Glock designed a pistol to be used as a military sidearm. It had to be as simple and no-frills as possible, lightweight, and have a high capacity. In a military situation, using a sidearm at all generally means everything's gone to shit and you need to put lead in something before that something puts a bayonet in you. In that respect the Glock is great, it's a point-and-shoot weapon that's utterly idiot proof, and since you're not exactly handling it all that much anyway, the odds of having an incident with something invading your trigger guard and making the gun go off is very low.
But that's not what we're talking about now, is it? Glocks are commonly used by cops and average joes, and we can find plenty of examples of either not using best practices with a gun that is especially unforgiving of that.
Maybe you feel like more of a badass because you tell yourself with mathematical certainty that you'll never, ever, ever botch something involving a Glock's trigger. Good for you then. I prefer a safety, and I'd prefer those around me had one too, because I don't know if they're all as cool as you are.
Did you literally stop reading the quote halfway through? I mean, really?
But the training for both is the same.
> I might need to draw and fire some day, better work on my draw and fire
> I might accidentally ND some day, better work on trigger discipline, direction safety, proper clearing, etc.
>you dismissed my arguments as cherry picking
Because they were the definition of cherry picking. If I find a bunch of stories about 1911 NDs, and I probably could because it's a popular gun, does it mean the 1911 is unsafe? I don't think so.
AR15's used in TV shows without rear fucking sights. I know that the walking dead did this, but I was watching some shitty tv show in the breakroom of my work, and the henchmen were holding ar-15s on a guy which had no rear sights. Like, for fucks sake
GUYS. Can we stop with all the back and forth about the Glock safety (or lack thereof) already?
I just solved everyone's problems.
>Safe Action Trigger on a Safe Action Trigger
>The Safest Action Trigger
You can have an ND with any gun, that's not really the point. A gun with an external manual safety will not go off while the safety is engaged unless it suffers a mechanical failure. A Glock's trigger will likely do just fine in a great many situations - I have been piling on episodes where it wasn't enough.
That's not cherry picking, that's the actual factual exact problem I am highlighting.
Toyotas are really safe cars, only a few people died due to the accelerator pedal sticking, and most of those were due to the floor mats in the driver's footwell coming loose anyway. Obviously there's no problem there, just make sure your floor mat is actually adhered to the floor before you get in your car.
It sounds a bit silly now when you take a step back and juxtapose the same logic on something that is by definition not "supposed" to be deadly.
It seems you take more exception with the idea that it is valid to criticize a gun which can discharge unintentionally in a given situation. I have "cherry picked" numerous instances of that happening. This is why I referenced the problem with the R700's safety. Same result arrived at by different means.
>airguns are not real guns
Yeah yeah airsoft is toys, but still dangerous, whatever.
But there are air rifles intended for hunting medium game. They're not all toys. Even the lower power ones aren't legal for use in airsoft play, and are intended for long-range target shooting. The CZ618 (and 613 and 620 and ... ), a literal toy that came to the west in thousands meant to be played with by children, is not legal in modern airsoft because it shoots at too high a muzzle velocity and is intended to load pellets, which fucking hurt.
If you'd respect a .22LR gun, why not a .22 Pellet one?
>and we can find plenty of examples of either not using best practices with a gun that is especially unforgiving of that.
not that guy you're arguing with, but is this your argument as to why glocks are bad?
Oh well, continuing...
>>He is an experienced instructor and competitive shooter, receiving professional training from the best in the business. He has good weapon handling skills. I have seen him draw and shoot and know that he doesn’t casually keep his finger on the trigger while holstering. It was a somewhat baffling dilemma.
>>Many shooters hold their fingers this way when not firing. They believe that since the finger is not on the trigger, an accidental discharge won’t occur. In general, they are correct. But most shooters don’t know that certain situations can cause an involuntary hand clenching. The tightening of the hand causes a contraction of all of the fingers with a force up to 30 lbs. (the Glock trigger pull weight is around 6 lbs.) and cannot be consciously controlled.
Involuntary muscle action, interesting.
I'd rather a gun with a safety like a Glock than one that has none at all like a Sig.
The triggle pull on a Sig Sauer is like 27lbs right? I remember it being not a lot, but there being absolutely no safety on it at all other than handling it properly.
And yet people lose their shit over Sigs like theyr'e the apex pistol but call Glocks unsafe.
Nah, figured I'd save that for the lawsuits. But since we're clawing at each other so vigorously:
Weirdly this suit appears to still be ongoing. One would think if there's absolutely zero chance of liability due to a design oversight this would have been dismissed years ago.
>>criticism of the Glock's trigger design is cherry picking
>>every specific-instance flaw of a product ever is cherry picking
A cursory google tells me I was thinking of the P226, which still is a safety-less pistol that's pretty popular afaik despite being intrinsically unsafe beyond being double-action (but still not having that heavy a trigger pull)
We're not clawing at each other vigorously, dude. You're Googling what you want to find and masturbatory posting. It's like you think if you try the same strategy enough, it'll work. I hate to ask but have you seen someone about this behavior?
27 pounds is like 4 grams or something, innit?
I'm just remembering it from Basic and thinking "Wow what an unsafe piece of shit" because the only safety it has is being double-action and a (supposedly) heavy pull. I wouldn't trust one falling off a table and not going off somehow.
I used the expression since you seem to feel the need to casually add some kind of passive-aggressive criticism to every response you've had. One doesn't usually lay out the vulgarities when they're debating an issue in good spirits.
>>In terms of mechanical design, there are few flaws with Glock pistols. If a law enforcement officer, soldier or citizen does exactly what they are supposed to do all of the time with cyborg certainty, there will be no problems with the Glock or other popular pistols mimicking its basic design. Unfortunately, “RoboCop” is only a movie, and humans are liable to make similar mistakes over and over again.
>>The underlying problem with these pistols is a short trigger pull and the lack of an external safety. In real-world encounters, a short trigger pull can be lethal, in part because a significant percentage of law enforcement officers — some experts say as high as 20% — put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress. According to firearms trainers, most officers are completely unaware of their tendency to do this and have a hard time believing it, even when they're shown video evidence from training exercises.
>>For more than 35 years, officer-involved accidental discharges with Glocks and Glock-like weapons have been blamed on a lack of training or negligence on the part of the individual cops. What critics should be addressing instead is the brutal reality that short trigger pulls and natural human reflexes are a deadly combination.
So again they are saying human error is the issue in this article. Like the other articles you've posted.
Seriously, anon, you need to see a specialist. This is classic asbergers.
holy fucking shit. that's literally what the case is over.
for anyone interested, the tl;dr version goes:
>cop leaves guns in his truck, a beretta and a glock
>cop straps his 3 year old son into the back seat of the truck where he thinks the guns are out of reach
>his son shoots him
>he sues Glock, Revolver Club, Bushnell and Andrews Sporting Goods, and Turner's outdoorsman because glocks have 5 pound triggers and no safeties
>glocks have no safeties
but this is literally wrong. They won't go off unless you explicitly pull the trigger, which is not possible to do by unpreventable accident in most if not all circumstances. This is not true of guns that do not have safeties, that can go off under routine non-firing conditions.
yes. that's literally his argument. the guy that got shot didn't even use the safety on his 92fs, so added safeties wouldn't have done anything. basically every company he's suing called him a retard and said there was no defect with the gun.
You should be more current with the DSM, they don't consider Asperger's to actually be a thing anymore.
>>all opinions I disagree with are discounted
That's kind of an interesting interpretation of the article. What I got out of it is that a gun designed for minimal handling and maximum shot-on-target speed might not be the best choice for our often poorly-trained police officers.
Some anon earlier pointed out that NYPD, among others, modify their Glocks to have atrocious trigger pulls in order to reduce NDs on the force.
Even if they were using some of those garbage old S&Ws from the early 90s this would be a non-issue.
>implying cop discharges are true NDs
They willingly shoot people and just look for scapegoats. If it wasn't "Glocks le have no safeties :^)" it'd be the old "he was reaching for a gun so I had to shoot!" even though the perp is on film with his hands up the whole time.
>"You should be more current with the DSM, they don't consider Asperger's to actually be a thing anymore."
>Some anon earlier pointed out that NYPD, among others, modify their Glocks to have atrocious trigger pulls in order to reduce NDs on the force.
that's because there's very very little firearms training required for LEOs. and the shitty trigger pull definitely adds to how inaccurate their officers are in new york, and why they can miss 83 out of 84 shots, or hit a bunch of civilians.
retarded fucking users isn't a problem with the gun.
if you stab yourself, its not the knifes fault for being too sharp.
A relentless desire to argue with other anons when the both of us could be doing something more productive?
Maybe I'll name it after myself.
You're projecting. I have not once accused a Glock of being "bad". I am critical of the fact that its so-called safety mechanism cannot prevent the gun from going off if something invades your trigger guard and is capable of exerting force on the trigger, which is not a problem for a gun with an external manual safety. The other anon threw that out since I only posted a single example of it. Thus the last... hour or so? I think.
To digress, the point is that certain situations can cause a Glock (or some SIGs, or M&Ps that don't have the safety added) to go off when something like a 1911 or a CZ or even a cheapo Bersa wouldn't. I think that's a problem.
Oh, uh, just as an addendum to that LA Times op-ed:
>>Bob Owens is the editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, a rifle marksmanship instructor with Project Appleseed and the author of the short ebook "So You Want to Own a Gun."
Unless you're secretly Jeff Cooper I really don't think you've got a better body of knowledge than the author of that piece...
Being able to deactivate the weapon by pressing on a button or toggle is not "babysitting". Your views on gun control (lol) are interesting.
Was that not a correct use of the term? He was trying to allude to a common criticism of the weapon which I myself have not actually made. It leads me to suspect other people have made that argument before and he's had to defend his weapon of choice to them.
Maybe I'm the one who needs to brush up on my undergrad psychology stuff.
>Being able to deactivate the weapon by pressing a button or a toggle
Or like maybe by letting off one. Like maybe one on the trigger? I don't know, something like that anyway. Probably never been done before.
>Being able to deactivate the weapon by pressing on a button or toggle
The Glock is by default deactivated. You have to activate it by pulling the trigger. Many other firearms do not have systems that prevent the gun from going off with through other means than the trigger being pulled.
The Glock literally has a safety. What is so hard to understand about this?
>g-gun control! gGUN CONTROLLL
Alright, since we're going to call in others now, I suppose you haven't got anything positive to say about the three-position safety a Mauser has?
I mean, who would ever need to have the gun on safe and still be able to open the bolt? Just don't put your finger on the trigger.
Fucking Mauser brothers, amirite? Rifle manufacturers need to stop acting like it's the 1890s and get with the times.
...you didn't really think I was trying to somehow turn this into some kind of gun control thing, did you?
Gun control as in "controlling a gun", not "blue-state fascists disarming us". Thus the obligatory lol at the choice of phrasing.
It's true though.
What used to be Aspergers is now so low on the new autism spectrum that it's unclear if it's even a disease, might just be symptoms associated with weird dudes.
Source: I'm probably a sperg because I go on this site, am a software developer, have issues learning things by having them demonstrated, and people call me a fucking sperg.
Most guns that use Mauser-style actions have a variation on that safety design, including totally modern rifles. This leads me to believe a great many people are willing to pay for a gun that "babysits" them.
>>He's still not realized the superiority of my argument, better call him a faggot.
Not that you called me a faggot or anything, but you've been pretty fast and loose with what's actually been said so far, I figured the sentiment was close enough.
anon, you surely realize how stupid your argument is, right? you literally posted a court case in which a guy got shot by a gun and he's mad about it so he's trying to sue the people that made the gun.
>old-ass mauser rifles exist, therefore glocks don't have safeties
Are all Americans this terrible?
The second one was a Winchester that was probably a good hundred years newer than the Mauser I posted first.
Also, it occurs to me I haven't posted any more "person shoots himself while re-holstering a Glock" articles in a while. I should fix that.
Weird how there's so many of these...
>>An officer for this reason drew his or her weapon and when the officer went to return his weapon to its holster, the Glock .40 caliber fired.
Oh, extra credit!
>>Heubusch confirmed that buttons on the sides of officers' jackets have been known to catch on the triggers of guns, but the officer in this case was not wearing a jacket and the officer had on no other clothing that might have caught on the trigger.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Glock's trigger design at all. Zero problems. Yep.
>nothing caught on the trigger
>gun went off
makes a lot of sense. totally wasn't just a dipshit cop trying to save face after having an nd
every one of your posts is so fucking stupid it's just sad. please just say you trolled us good and get on with it
In my ideal world, the cops and military would trade sidearms. Berettas are good guns, accurate, handle well, but they're heavy and complicated. Both the dudes I know who went to Astan were issued M9s but rarely, if ever, carried them because it was more advantageous to just bring more ammunition for your primary weapon, or an extra grenade, or some such thing. If you're a cop who's rolling around in a cruiser all day, it doesn't really matter how heavy your sidearm is. Meanwhile Glocks were designed to be a military handgun from the very beginning, i.e. a weapon used in an emergency situation when you absolutely need it to go bang *right the fuck now*.
>>all cops who have ever shot themselves with a Glock are dipshits, there is absolutely no way it could be due to a design oversight with the gun.
So, why do you think this particular cop felt it was necessary to fondle his gun while in a bathroom stall?
I mean that's the implication, right? There's no way an article of clothing might have gotten wedged into his holster while he was taking a dump? Hmm...
Nobody is forcing you to stay here, y'know.
The point of a safety is not to prevent the trigger from pulling while your finger is on it, its to prevent it from being pulled while holstering your weapon which is when 95% of people will shoot themselves. Its a necessity on a gun that doesn't have an external hammer (like a glock) because you can't simply put your thumb behind the hammer while holstering. The seriousness of the holstering issue is amplified under stress, which you will be under after having to shoot someone. Then what if you wish to holster your weapon to run out of the area and hop a wall if its still dangerous? Or put your CCW back in the holster so officer fucktard doesn't shoot you when he arrives on scene thinking you're the suspect.
And don't tell me "just look at your holster and be super duper careful" because this is what macho men like you are teaching people to do WHILE UNDER STRESS:
Try wantching that without cringing.
It also is a good feature if you want to leave your gun on a table, in a drawer, or in a safe while chambered. You really wouldn't want to grab your gun under stress or in the dark without one. It's time you guys just get over your fetish for being a macho man who don't need no homo safety. Your deadly weapon, that can kill or seriously injure someone including yourself, should not just go 0 to 100 because something puts a little bit of force in one particular area. A thumb safety is NOT redundancy, as I've stated it has a clear purpose. Though redundancy isn't a bad thing with again, a deadly fucking weapon.
Don't try to ignore this. Counter it, I want to hear your bullshit opinions. You haven't though hard enough, realize this. You listened to idiots on the internet who told you without any facts, and with misconceptions about what the safety is even for.
the trigger safety and the firing pin block are drop safeties. The cocking thing isn't a real safety. It's just a way to make a shittier trigger pull.
when most people talk about a safety they mean something you can switch to make the gun not fire. Glocks are drop safe but they don't have what i would think of as "a safety"
Look at rifle safeties; most block the trigger from being pulled.
Look at slide safety pistols; blocks the hammer from striking
Look at revolvers; some have a manual safety that blocks the trigger from being pulled.
>keep pressure on the trigger guard so it doesn't slip
we learned the opposite at basic handling C7s, keep your finger loose but away entirely. if it slips or whatever, great, you break your finger by crushing it on the fucking receiver against whatever you fell on instead of shooting your buddy in the back of the knee by accident
>put it inside the trigger
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA stopped watching there
>all cops who have ever shot themselves with a Glock are dipshits
yes. that's exactly what I'm saying.
and no, a holster won't let clothing get near your trigger you noguns retard.
>Forget to turn your oh-so-safe manual safety on your 92 or 1911 on and have your hand on the grip and the same thing could hypothetically happen.
unless my hammer is down, faggot
Wouldn't it be a great world if all rifles had Glock type safeties? Because then even if your gun was "safe", even Travis "Tight Pants Tight Groupings" Haley would be ND'ing. Put the damn safety on before you fuck with the gun...
>safeties are for reholstering
Must be why they're on rifles and shotguns. I always check the safety before reholstering my PTR-91 CCW.
>admits Glock has a "cocking thing" (trigger safety?)
>not a real safety though because reasons I guess
Unless you're actually carrying an original Government Model they don't go off if you smack the hammer anymore.
And if you ARE carrying an original 1911 what the fuck is wrong with you? That's a collector's piece. Go buy one from Rock Island or something and carry that.
Oh, I'm sorry, I figured someone as cool as an ex-Magpul demonstrator (or the anon in this thread earlier) would be able to demonstrate a bad handling technique without actually having an ND. My mistake.
I'm really comfortable with you carrying a Glock now.
They're on rifles and shotguns because the fad hasn't gotten to them yet. Many say they have them because the triggers are lighter than the DA pull on handguns. Glocks do not have a DA pull, they're SA only and yea SA only because there's no cocking of the hammer upon pulling of the trigger, and the pull is somewhat light, lighter than some rifles family...
They go off if you have your finger on the trigger and the safety off if you have a good grip on it dipshit. That was my entire point.
>no cocking of the hammer upon pulling the trigger
Wanna know how I know you don't know how a Glock works?
>glockbois don't want a safety because they think their gun will do nothing when they need it and pull the trigger
>glocks have no second strike
>will literally do nothing when they pull the trigger if the striker or primer fail
So a walther pps has the same drop safeties as a glock. But you can put you thumb on the back of the firing pin and feel it. I have one but I don't think of it as having a"safety "
...so... you're saying it was an intentional accidental discharge?
There's no universe in which he wanted that gun to go off right then. If anything it's a further indictment of a gun whose only safety is in the trigger.
Uh, yeah... if Glock doesn't go bang on the first go, you rack the slide. Like I've been pretty critical of the Glock trigger but this is just dumb.
You SHOULD do that with any gun whenever you can. If you have a DA gun you could just pull the trigger again and hope it goes bang this time, but I believe the preferred method today is to just assume that round is a dud and get the next one up and chambered.
It's not about feel, the hammer will not function with your finger behind it even with gentle firmness.
To the other faggots saying I don't know how a flock works you know damn well what I meant. The striker not hammer. Quit trying to pull semantics and try to counter my actual point.
no. I'm not saying it was intentional. I'm saying he was demonstrating it was a bad technique, and one reason why it was a bad technique happened by chance.
did you notice how the gun didn't magically go off until he was using a really shitty technique? if he was using normal trigger discipline, even with the safety off, no shots would have been fired.
>pull trigger and hope
No fuckhead, you're going to pull the trigger 10 more times before you realize what's going on and rerack it. Would you rather be pulling a dead trigger or one that performs the function of a trigger? It just might go off on that second or third, but indeed you should train to rack it as soon as you realize what happened.
>don't do what I just called you out for doing
>does exactly what I called him out for doing
Got an excuse for your lack of an argument or knowledge of real world firearms training?
For the record, I'd rather have a DA gun so I'd have the ABILITY to pull the trigger again and go for a second shot, or at least a hammer I can recock for same, but again, the preferred method is to just rack the slide immediately and worry on whether it was a dud round or a light primer strike later.
I'm no fan of Glocks as all the bitching about the trigger should suggestion, but this is one area where it's not really that big of a deal.
If you really really feel like it's necessary to be able to cock your Glock you can get one of these things...
Though at that point I'm questioning why you aren't using a gun with a hammer in the first place.
The cocking thing is just a half assed DA trigger. If you made a glock without the drop safeties and never dropped it wouldn't be any more safe then a regular glock. It doesn't have a safety it has drop safeties. It doesn't have a no go bang switch. We have different ideas of what "a safety" means.
b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but if you're an idiot that's not paying attention when holstering a toddler might jam his dick into your trigger guard and then you'll shoot off a bunch of rounds by accident! Glocks are SHIT!
I haven't tried pulling the trigger on my pps with my thumb on the firing pin. I'll dry fire it tomorrow and see. There should be enough leverage to still pull the trigger but it at least is a way to check yourself while you reholster.
Except that's a lie.
If I hit my 1911's frame safety on something while I'm putting the gun away, it won't go off unless I'm also pulling the trigger and have the grip safety depressed at the same time.
And have the hammer cocked.
I suppose I have a better question at this point, it's 2016, you can get an M&P... why have a Glock at all?
Forget the trigger for a minute, it's still basically the same gun that Gaston Glock drew in the late 70s. They have adjustable backstraps and finger grooves now, which I guess is good, but...
I don't care what your position is. glocks are shitty shit because they don't stop me from shooting myself if pull the trigger. I have to keep my finger and toddler dicks AWAY from the trigger to keep it from going bang. how fucking worthless is that?
I told you to ignore the trigger thing.
Also ignore that you can get a no go bang switch on an M&P.
In terms of ergonomics and barrel axis it's just a better gun overall. Polymer molding and composition has changed a lot since 1980, but Glocks are still built basically the same way they were back then.
I'm saying that there are only drop safeties on a glock and not a real safety. A walther p22 has too many safeties. It has a stupid key lock safety and a manual safety that blocks the hammer, it has a drop safe trigger, a magazine disconnect and a chamber indicator. The key and manual safeties I think of as real safeties. The other things are nice but not real safeties.
Not a huge glock fan. Their ergonomics suck and they're over hyped in my opinion. But a weapon not having a manual external safety is different than having no safety at all. I carry a p229. It has no external safety. But it has a very robust internal safety.
I don't feel like opening my safe up. That good enough for you, anon?
Or anything else that might have invaded your trigger guard which can effect an equivalent amount of force. Like a worn leather holster, or a drawstring tab, keys on a lanyard...
This is literally what I've been bitching about all night.
Except that pretty much never happens except through total shit holsters (design flaw in the holster) or human error. You've been bitching about it all night and you've still not managed to prove anything. It's impressive really.
>You've been bitching about it all night and you've still not managed to prove anything. It's impressive really.
this. I applaud dipshit anon. it's no easy feat to post completely irrelevant links and posts all night long without saying anything at all.
Galco makes shit holsters now?
This is news to me.
>>the gun I like has a defect that has caused numerous ADs which wouldn't have happened with a gun not using the same system, clearly everyone is a retard and needs to be more like me
No it's to literally prevent the trigger from moving backwards you autist. It's one of the simplest things to understand about the gun.
>still using leather
Yes, shitty. And human error doesn't mean a product has a defect. For instance, you are shitting up this board. But that's because you're an autistic fudd who isn't capable of grasping the concept of responsibility with a firearm. It's not 4chan's fault.
First I must apologize in advance for linking to a shit website like Mother Jones in the first place. But the factual parts of the article are still worth bringing up:
>>In 1988, the FBI predicted that the Glock's sensitive trigger and lack of external safeties would "inevitably ... lead to an unintentional shot at the worst moment." Indeed, 11 years later, the Washington DC Police Department alone had had 120 accidental firings, 19 officers had wounded themselves or others with Glocks, and the district had paid $1.4 million in damages from resulting lawsuits related to Glock accidents. In one case, an officer shot and killed an unarmed teen at a DC roadblock. Another officer accidentally shot and killed an unarmed motorist during a routine traffic stop. One DC cop accidentally shot his own roommate.
>>The Louisville, Ky. Police Department adopted the Glock just last year. Within six months, five Louisville police guns fired accidentally. One bullet hit a truck. Another officer's gun fired while he was leaning over to tie his shoe laces. After the third misfire, Louisville police rushed to defend their new Glocks, declaring the gun not guilty in the third incident -- the officer's gun went off accidentally as he was attacked by a man who had fled a routine traffic stop. Rather than bagging the gun, the department implemented new training in gun safety. Several more accidents followed almost immediately, the fifth an errant bullet accidentally wounding an officer's son.
Full article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/light-triggers-hefty-profits
I've gone from nogunz to an autistic fudd now. I guess that's an upgrade?
I fucking apologized for linking to it in the first place because I know what a cesspool it is. That doesn't make the factual parts of the article wrong.
If there was an opinion website you actually liked and it published a bunch of drivel and garbage, would you take it at face value just because what they usually publish there is good?
You're deflecting and pivoting.
that doesn't prove anything. like, at all. That just proves that there were 120 incidents where people were fucking stupid.
if I predicted that having sharp knives would lead to people cutting themselves, then people cut themselves, that doesn't mean the knife is a worthless piece of shit for being too sharp and all knives should be dull.
if I predict that someone will get impaled by a forklift, then someone gets impaled by one because they weren't paying attention, that doesn't mean the forklift needs spring loaded arms that retract when they come in contact with a retard. it just means that retards need to fucking pay attention and be responsible for their actions.
The FBI report from 1988 they referenced exists. You could probably sleuth down news articles about the various Glock-related mishaps that occurred in the 90s.
Just because it is posted on Mother Jones or some other shit-tier website doesn't mean it suddenly becomes false.
No no anon, apparently if we want to use a leather holster in 2016 we're fudds and autists. Everyone must use a Serpa or Blackhawk or some other Nutnfancy-approved plastic brick in order to protect the Glock's trigger from our stupidity.
But it is. It literally blocks the trigger's rearward travel and moves a little out of the way if you pull on it. It's so simple to understand that a monkey could figure it out. So what's your excuse?
> “Most of our violent crime in Australia is committed by licensed shooters.”Samantha Lee, anti-gun activist.
>“Once you’ve qualified to own a semi-automatic handgun in Australia, you can basically have as many as you like in the home, keeping them at home.”Rebecca Peters, former IANSA spokesperson.
>“Our logic is that shooters are the most ill-disciplined people of any recreational
group. That’s what attracts them to guns. It’s a state of mind. They are
usually poorly educated; they never had much success at school and were never
very good at sport.” John Crook, former Gun Control Australia president.
>“...a gun is designed and purchased with lethal or threatening intent.”
Simon Chapman, anti-gun academic.
>“The majority of Australian shooters are responsible persons is beyond
>“Most illegal guns are not trafficked into Australia, they are stolen from registered owners. Almost all illegal guns started out as legal weapons.” Senator Penny Wright, Australian Greens, 2014.
> “The people who require a [hand] machine-gun be carried around available to them, in the glove box or whatever is very, very limited in a peaceful society like our own... There is no reason for so many hundreds of thousands of handguns, including effectively [hand] machine-guns to be available in Australia.” Bob Brown, former Australian Greens Leader and Senator.
>“Handguns should be banned in Australia because they serve no useful purpose and are often the target of thieves wanting to sell them on the black
market.” John Crook, former Gun Control Australia president.
>“...just one percent of illegal firearms come from illegal imports.” David Shoebridge MLC, New South Wales Greens, 2015.
Australian anti-gun groups.
Notice how there's a molded area for the trigger guard now. Many reputable manufacturers started doing this after the first round of people shooting themselves due to warping leather hitting their Glock "safe action triggers" started propagating the internet.
Rather strange that nobody seemed to feel the need to make holsters that way until Glocks became popular.
I wonder why that is?
you mean the guy that had previously shot himself in the hand and admitted that it was his own fault for being careless?
>“I need to pay more attention,” Counceller said. “I know what the dangers are. It was pure carelessness on my part.”
>I was unloading (the gun) to take it to the gunsmith and I didn't drop the barrel to see if there was (a bullet) in the chamber," Counceller said. "The shot hit my hand. That one really hurt."
So in other words, they had a holster that wasn't properly meeting the demand for a specific gun, and when that demand presented itself, they switched over to a design that did.
And therefore Glocks are bad.
Is that your logic?
It wasn't "an LEO", it was the chief of police for the local department.
But don't you worry about that, the Glock apologists will discount any possible criticism you might have of Glock's trigger as mental retardation. There is absolutely no possibility that there just might be something to be critical about with the design of the gun itself.
The gun requires special consideration that no other gun does. I think that's something to be critical of, you don't.
You know other things could maybe push it back if that wasn't there? I know you don't have a Glock because you're probably scared of them, but if you do, please try to push the trigger in any natural snag angle. It won't go off.
Just in case it does, though, can you aim it at your head? Thanks.
>I wonder why that is?
because technology advances and people realize that you don't want things getting into your trigger guard? it's baseless conjecture to assume glocks are the sole reason holsters are more molded now. it's even more retarded, because if that were the case, only holsters for glocks would be molded.
>For his part, Chief Counceller said, “I’m really lucky. It doesn’t even hurt… I need to pay more attention. I know what the dangers are. It was pure carelessness on my part.”
>But that’s the second of such careless discharges by the same Police Chief.
if that's who you're using as your basis that glocks are bad, I feel sorry for you.
Here's a point of reference. You can use an old holster on an old gun with no trouble. You can also use a new holster on an old gun with same. But you use an old holster on a new gun and it might shoot you.
A deliberate design choice was made there in the name of making the gun faster to draw and shoot, which makes perfect sense in the context the gun was designed for.
You seem to think I've got some vendetta against Glocks in general, and that's just not true. Perhaps if you laid off on figuring out what sort of insult you're going to type out next you might realize that the criticism is more narrow and pointed than "Glocks r bad".
What are "emphasis quotes" for $200, Alex?
I don't have a glock. I do have an m&p and two Walther's that have drop safe triggers. And there have been snags that have fired glocks. If it had a manual safety then it wouldn't have. I'm not saying it is a bad gun. I'm saying the trigger is not a safety. It is a drop safe trigger.
>And there have been snags that have fired glocks. If it had a manual safety then it wouldn't have.
>trying to prove a hypothetical
And that is the main problem with your argument. You ignore all the NDs that happen with manual safeties and just blame it on the big bad Glawk.
No they do actually think that. Any manual safety gun NDs and it's human error. And Glock NDs and it's just Glock's fault. Same mentality as people who smoke and want to sue big tobacco.
Good call on the M&P.
That being the case, anon, you are also oversimplifying the Glock's trigger. It WILL function just fine in a great many situations - I'm specifically being critical of the fact that foreign objects invading your trigger guard should not set off a holstered pistol.
If you don't put the safety on that's your fault. Glock doesn't even give me the choice.
YOU WILL DO IT THE WAY WE SAY EVERY TIME AND YOU'LL LIKE IT
Glock gives you the choice to, idk, not buy their gun? Doesn't mean you have to say the gun is wrong just because you don't like it. It's like a personal affront to these people that it doesn't resemble grandpappy's .45...
so your argument is that you should rely on a guns safety to make sure it doesn't go off? you can be as careless as you want so long as your manual safety is on?
your primary safety is the one between your ears. mattv2099 is joking when he says you can turn your brain safety off when the manual safety is on.
Gaston Glock's OBVIOUSLY, anon. Actually they should buy a Glock. It'll give them an excuse when they inevitably shoot themselves in the leg. Better to do it with a gun they can blame it on.
If the safety is on the trigger getting snagged shouldn't fire the gun, if you have a drop safe trigger you can't have the nonexistent safety on and snagging the trigger can fire the gun. It this too had for you to get? It is a design choice. I don't want a manual safety on my ccw so I have a pps. A glock not having a safety doesn't mean it's unsafe.
>If the safety is on the trigger getting snagged shouldn't fire the gun, if you have a drop safe trigger you can't have the nonexistent safety on and snagging the trigger can fire the gun. It this too had for you to get?
Well I'm not sure it would have been if it had been worded in any coherent way.
>A glock not having a safety doesn't mean it's unsafe.
Well I agree. But also Glocks do have safeties.
Overall, 3/10 post. Could be a solid 4 with some grammar cleanup.
Fuck it I'm putting on a trip because I think we are getting crossed up. I think the glock doesn't have a real safety. It has a drop safe trigger. That isn't a bad thing but glocks are still the ugliest gun.
I'm saying it makes a lot more sense for the gun to be physically deactivated when you aren't actively shooting it.
As far as I'm aware of the staggering majority of semiautos made before the Glock were this way. Off the top of my head the TT-33 and some SIGs don't have a no go bang switch of some description - if there's others feel free to enlighten me.
This is true for most guns in general. Glock has popularized this thing where they have a safety integrated into the trigger and which some other companies have copied or made derivatives of. It works just fine at what it does, i.e. it makes the gun not go bang unless you pull the trigger and means you don't have to fuss with anything else when you're drawing a weapon. Very handy in a situation where you need to have your gun out and firing in an instant, especially in a stress situation where you might not remember to properly actuate your gun's safety lever. This is *actually factually why* the Glock is built the way it is.
The only thing I've been complaining about all night is that other things besides your finger can, and have, on numerous occasions, pulled the trigger resulting in an AD or ND, 100% of which could have been prevented by a positive manual safety. I think that's a problem, you obviously don't.
>Well... it's UGLY THOUGH
>As far as I'm aware of the staggering majority of semiautos made before the Glock were this way.
There he is! Pic related. Of course... after the Glock came out, everyone started going that direction so... hm...
>could have been prevented by a positive manual safety
Prove it. Prove a hypothetical. This should be interesting.
Oh really? So if I forget to flip on the manual safety it magically does it for me? NEAT.
>I'm saying it makes a lot more sense for the gun to be physically deactivated when you aren't actively shooting it.
it is physically deactived when you aren't actively shooting it. there are 3 safeties engaged when you're not shooting it.
>The only thing I've been complaining about all night is that other things besides your finger can, and have, on numerous occasions, pulled the trigger resulting in an AD or ND
which is 100% avoidable if you're paying any attention. This isn't a fault with the glock, it's a fault with the user, and ONLY the user.
if you're careless enough to let something get into the trigger guard that could pull the trigger, you're doing something entirely fucking wrong, manual safety or not.
They don't have manual safeties. Most people say safety when they are talking about that and not when they are talking about other things about the gun. I don't call a seat belt a car safety.
Maybe because it would be retarded to call a seat belt a car safety because no one calls them that. Of course a gun safety is called a gun safety, so it would be reasonable to call a gun safety a gun safety.
C'mon man, you can't be THIS shit at arguing.
>>implying Uncle Jimbo and Ned aren't awesome
Everyone started going that way? Really? This would be news to me too. Let's see... Glock has them that way obviously, S&W does too, though they have an OEM manual safety as an option, so I don't think that really counts... hmm...
Hey anon, what other guns designed since Glock don't have any manual safety of any kind? I'm actually having a hard time naming any off the top of my head.
No, it isn't.
If you have a Glock, and you stick something in the trigger guard and apply sufficient force, it goes bang. That is not "deactivated" by anyone's definition except yours.
Try that with an M1911, or a Hi-Power, or a Beretta, or a CZ, or even an LC9 with the safety on and the gun *will not fire*. Period. That's the end of the story.
Hell, if you wanna limit it to only guns a fudd autist like myself would never own, the fucking Canik has a decocker button that more or less functions as a safety so that when you put the gun away *it does not go bang when the trigger is depressed*.
What is so difficult about this to grasp? The fact that you don't even consider any of that to be a valid criticism is why I call you an apologist rather than someone who just has a different opinion.
Ppsguy the Glock's trigger safety does work just fine in most situations. The entire thread we have here is bickering with the Glock apologists over where the circumstances where it DOESN'T work are actually a problem or not.
I wouldn't call it a shitty safety, it just has certain vulnerabilities.
>Hey anon, what other guns designed since Glock don't have any manual safety of any kind? I'm actually having a hard time naming any off the top of my head.
You can't be serious. Off the top of my head: HK, Springfield, Ruger, and yes, S&W because that lever is an OPTION for fudds like you. Saying it doesn't count because you said so doesn't make sense.
If that's what you got from that comment, your condition may be worsening, but sure, go ahead if it makes you happy.
>and you stick something in the trigger guard and apply sufficient force, it goes bang.
>so long as the little secondary lever is also depressed
if the safety on a glock isn't disengaged, it won't go bang, no matter how hard you pull. that's deactivated. it just takes less effort to make hot.
I'm really confused on what you argument actually is though. no one is saying that it's not easy to disengage the safety on a glock. People are just saying that it's your fault if you do it unintentionally. what about that do you disagree with exactly?
yes. because unless the 2nd trigger is depressed, the 1st trigger won't do anything.
>having a trigger on the grip is the same as having a real safety?
The fact that a Glock's safety can be accidentally disengaged and then have the gun go off immediately is a weakness in the overall design that a gun with an external manual safety (aka no go bang switch) does not have.
I'm not saying it's even LIKELY, but the fact that I've found so many examples of it happening means it is a real possibility, even if a small one.
Glocks use a Browning-style tilting barrel and Gaston Glock copied the main recoil spring from a pre-WWI Steyr pistol. Just because it's made of plastic doesn't mean it's somehow majestically more innovative.
You wanna talk a gun that was REALLY cutting edge? Pic related.
To be fair, I didn't realize that you couldn't accidentally disengage a manual safety and have the gun go off and that it's never happened.
>Glocks use a Browning-style tilting barrel and Gaston Glock copied the main recoil spring from a pre-WWI Steyr pistol. Just because it's made of plastic doesn't mean it's somehow majestically more innovative.
Anon's entire point was that they were similar you autist.
>so many examples
no one is autistic enough to search google for examples of when other guns have had NDs. I promise you that it's not something unique to glocks though. it's not a design flaw, because it was the intended function of the gun. you're just being a fucking moron.
People unintentionally discharging their gun isn't the guns fault unless there was a mechanical failure. If there was no mechanical failure, the fault lies 100% with the user. There is nothing else to blame, but the retarded fucking user.
The operative word there was "immediately".
Let's take grandpa's 1911 here. Assuming the hammer's cocked, we have to first disengage the manual safety, then press down on the grip safety, then pull the trigger, in that order, for the gun to go off while it's going back into our holster. On a Glock, all you have to do is pull the trigger, either through your finger still being on it like an idiot or by some foreign object getting caught in the guard. I say that's a vulnerability, the Glock apologists say that's you being a short bus student.
Now take that sexy P7 for example. Unless you're squeezing down the grip safety, the gun *can't shoot* because that also acts as a cocker-decocker for the striker. No firm grip, no bang no matter what happens to the trigger.
>the fact that I've found so many examples of it happening means it is a real possibility
Honestly, the 1911 is DANGEROUS anon.
>it shouldn't be called a safety dispite being one because I don't like it and I said so.
Are you five?
>But the trigger safety on a glock shouldn't be called a safety. It is a shitty safety.
it's a safety that works well enough so long as you don't jam your dick into the trigger guard when holstering, and disengages easily enough to not have to think about it when drawing.
it's a safety that was designed with a very specific purpose in mind, and it executes that purpose perfectly fine.
But it doesn't matter what you think. You have to back it up.
>the Glock apologists say that's you being a short bus student.
Because you fucking are. If you're claiming the opposite, you're basically blaming the gun instead of the person. And that puts you in the same camp as antis.
>Unless you're squeezing down the grip safety, the gun *can't shoot* because that also acts as a cocker-decocker for the striker. No firm grip, no bang no matter what happens to the trigger.
again, if you're relying on a safety to keep the gun from going off, you're doing it really fucking wrong. your brain is your first and most important safety.
provide a video of a glock firing without the safety being depressed.
go ahead, I'll wait. if it's not a safety, you should be able to shoot it regardless of if it's engaged or not.
>>"Im sure Im going to catch hell , but Im coming here to clarify a safety issue on my new 1911 Ruger. Im very familiar with double/single action pistols with decockers.....never a problem....ever. But I just bought my very first SR1911 and cocked and locked just plain bothered me. Also carrying a unchambered , uncocked weapon just didnt seem right either.......so........I decided the best for me was to put the hammer down on a chambered round , so when needed all I had to do was cock aim and fire. Well......after practicing alot , and still not really feeling great about it my finger and thumb slipped !!!"
Don't manually decock the hammer while you have a round loaded? Or at the very least keep the gun pointed in a safe direction so if your finger slips it puts a bullet in the floor instead of your friend.
That's got nothing to do with the safety, frankly you can do that with any hammer-fired gun that doesn't have a manual decocker.
Do not bring the gun prohibitionists into this.
Your Glock was designed for a fast draw and fast shooting, they had to compromise inherent safety characteristics to make this happen.
You do realize you people are engaging in literally exactly the same thing, right? You're just not bothering to Google around for every other Nutnfancy expy who thinks the Glock's trigger is great and everyone else who's ever had a problem with it is a retard.
The point is that it's, by default, one step closer to an AD or ND than a gun that doesn't use that kind of trigger safety mechanism, and while we all want to preach the rules of gun safety and mock those who put a bullet somewhere they didn't intend, if we were all as hard and awesome as you Anons are, guns *wouldn't have a safety in the first place.*
Strangely, though, they do.
Do you keep your home defense rifle on go at all times too? Because you're never going to pull the trigger unless you mean to?
>It was designed as part of a safety pistol revolver and was meant to make it more drop safe. And yeah if we never needed a safety a gun would be safe.
Sorry, what are you actually trying to say here?
Don't manually decock the hammer while you have a round loaded? Or at the very least keep the gun pointed in a safe direction so if your finger slips it puts a bullet in the floor instead of your friend.
Oh so if a 1911 user is an idiot it's user error but if a Glock user is an idiot it's the Glock's fault.
you are saying the trigger on the grip is a safety. If you're holding the gun with even a halfway normal grip, the grip safety is going to be disengaged. effectively making it just a drop safety by your standards.
>trigger on the trigger
Love this one. The trigger safety isn't a trigger. It looks like one, but it's not. At all. That is not the technical function it serves. And that, gentlemen, is how you know someone doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.
>Do not bring the gun prohibitionists into this.
Why? They think guns are inherently dangerous and so do you. Just because you limit it to one type of gun doesn't make you a better person.
Gun prohibitionists don't think guns are dangerous, they think you - someone who doesn't have a badge - is dangerous. Otherwise why wouldn't they be calling for the police and their private bodyguards to be disarmed too?
That is what I can a safety. If I'm talking about some other party that does something else I call it something else. Like a drop safe trigger or a grip safety or a magazine disconnect.
by legal and engineering definition, glock's mechanical safeties are safeties. this isn't an argument. it's just you plugging your ears and pretending facts are wrong because you said so.
If you're a retard who can't holster a pistol properly, sure.
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to continue trying to jam a pistol into a holster when you start meeting resistance? You ask me, anybody dumb or inattentive enough to make that mistake was probably going to end up shooting themselves eventually anyway.
This thread is hilarious. Do you know why GlockUSA exists? Clock had to open a factory in the US to build them here because they can't be imported. Why can't they be imported, you ask? Because there is an import requirement on firearms that requires them to have a safety. It's why my reproduction single action revolver based on a mid 1860s design has a hammerblock safety. Anybody argueing that the Clock has a safety is a moron.
Well if the same people that bright us "assault weapon" as "shoulder thing that go up" agree with you on firearms technology, I guess that's checkmate for us. Good game guys. Time to go home.
>Making excuses for the average joe's lack of educating himself on care and use of a deadly weapon
You're why people hate us.
Literally, if you follow all responsible guidelines on gun care, and treat a firearm with respect and reverence like it deserves, you should never put you or your weapon in a position to fire accidentally, without intention, get picked up by some random person, or hurt/kill someone you don't intend to.