This statement X-posted from the other group.

[beevul]

How accurate is this statement, and what is the truth of whether they have no "mechanical safety" or not?

"...Glock and Keltek both manufacture guns with no mechanical safety with impunity"



Discuss.

[DonP]

1. Gee, I guess on that basis so do Colt and Smith & Wesson and pretty much every revolver mfr

Once again, ignorant of the facts and damn proud of it.

We teach our classes that; "A safety is a mechanical device that can and will fail, never rely on it." Hence the Four Rules.

[ileus]

2. I think they meant no manual safety...

there are plenty of mechanical safeties...

[sarisataka]

3. It is a misunderstanding

Of the difference between a mechanical safety and a manual safety.

A mechanical safety prevents the gun from firing due to outside factors, i.e. dropping, something striking the hammer, mechanical failure of the sear etc.
I believe Glocks have three mechanical safeties and Kel Tec two.
These type of safeties are passive and automatically disengage when the trigger is pulled.

A manual safety is a positive acting mechanism that interrupts the firing process at some point. It may block the trigger, hammer or disconnect a linkage between either of those.
A manual safety must be disengaged but once it is, the gun will fire once the trigger is pulled.

In either case the gun has no way to determine why the trigger is pulled. If pulled, a gun will fire as surely as water will come out of a faucet when the knob is turned.

In many cases, such as revolvers passive safeties have been adequate for over a century. For other guns, like the single action 1911, a manual safety is an absolute necessity.

Though it is very popular with police and civilians, IMO the Glock design is inadequate to rely on passive safeties and they should have manual safeties.

In all cases, the responsibility for a gun firing are on the head of the person handling the gun. True accidental discharges, where all safeties fail and the gun fires without any movement of the trigger, are nearnon-existent. Even in such a rare case, proper handling and muzzle awareness will prevent injury to a person.

[Eleanors38]

4. My old double barreled Stevens shotgun has an "automatic safety" which sets when the

Break action lever is moved. Many enthusiasts don't like them, considering them failure prone and inviting too much reliance on them. I kind of like it. It's always been reliable since it was made while Chuck Berry's "Down Bound Train" was charting (1955).

[Eleanors38]

5. knowing squat about Glocks, can it be cocked and not have the "benefit" of

a safety? In other words, wearing it in a holster while cocked would be as ill-advised as doing the same with a DA revolver?

[blueridge3210]

6. No "external" safety.

Load the magazine and rack the slide; the Glock is now "cocked and locked". The trigger requires a steady "double-action" pull as if it were a revolver; after the weapon discharges you can slightly release the trigger until you feel it "click" and reset and you can again fire as if it were a revolver with the hammer cocked. Release the trigger completely and it's back to a double action pull.

Personal preference; I don't like external safeties. I think they result in lazy thinking and reliance on devices to protect one from one's own carelessness. YMMV.

[sarisataka]

7. Pretty much as blueridge describes

Glock is striker fired so the pull is set at 5.5 lbs from the factory. My Sig is about 4.5 on SA. Also the Glock's travel is under a half inch.

There are after market triggers that significantly reduce the pull weight or increase it upto 12 lbs. NYC is the only ones I have ever heard going with a havier pull.

So you have a pistol with no manual safety that has, at best, a stiff short SA pull. The only thing that keep the trigger from moving is a small lever on the trigger.

While messing with an unloaded Glock I learned two things
-anything that slips inside the trigger guard will move that lever and
-any movement of the lever is enough to free the trigger

Therefore you essentially have a single action pistol with no external safety. I am willing to bet the majority of the Glocks that "go off" do so while holstering. Some clothes or even the holster strap gets inside the trigger guard and its just enough to move the trigger to fire

[krispos42]

8. One reason I like the Springfield Armory XD...

...is the grip safety on the back stop. I believe this corrected the Glock design.

[DonP]

12. Same reason I like my Para Expert Carry 1911

Cocked and locked in an IWB, that grip safety provides a whole lot of peace of mind.

Son in law has the Springfield XD and loves it for the same reason.

In fact, when I do a class we always wind up spending a whole session talking about the reality of carrying, what to carry, holsters, weight and comfort issues and about carrying every day if you're going to carry.

In Illinois it gets complicated, with so many Gun Free Zones, but it looks like the legislature will cut a few of those out this session.

[shadowrider]

18. I absolutely LOVE my Springfield XD sub-compact (in .40)

Nice trigger pull and accurate. Plus I have the ever needed "Zombie" red dot.

I also have a Sig P224 (in .40) subcompact but it has a very tight trigger. I'm thinking about taking it to a gunsmith and have the pull reduced to what the XD is.

[beevul]

9. Perhaps a misunderstanding...but then again...

Perhaps a misunderstanding...but then again...The poster of the below statement claims to be an FFL holder, own guns, and claims to know "more about guns than 95% of the ammosexuals among us".

I'll say again, the military's job description is tearing shit up and killing people but specs for military firearms mandate a mechanical safety device yet Glock and Keltek market guns without a safety to the general public. How is that a good idea?

WITHOUT A SAFETY. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.


I see this as deliberate misinformation, assuming we can take the poster at his/her own words about the FFL and "gun experience".

[blueridge3210]

10. Dishonesty from the pro-control side?

Like implying that firearms manufacturers are exempted from liability torts? Quelle Surprise!

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Given that the audience actively disdains technical knowledge...

...you can see why howlers like that get posted.

[blueridge3210]

14. Always a danger in an echo chamber.

No one allowed to post facts that contradict the established narrative. Makes their arguments weaker since they have little basis in the truth.

[DonP]

15. Even a question of doctrine gets you banned

I've noticed some new posters, with decent post counts, asking "why" or for details and they get the heave ho.

Not terribly tolerant of even questions. Not a good way to build your base by pissing all over them. That might account for the "heavy" traffic they have and the "success" of their control efforts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. That poster needs to be asked about this at the first opportunity

The answer(s) should be...interesting, to say the least.

[beevul]

17. I'd love to, but I'm not going to post over there.

Although it would definitely be something to link to, when someone is blocked for correcting what can be reasonably accurately and correctly be identified as deliberate misinformation.

[oneshooter]

16. Not a full FFL, only a C&R license. n/t