Glock striker control device - the gadget
- Thread starter 901Memphis
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: CT8
Glock perfection, if why so many after market gizmos?
So fast buck artists can quench the thirst of dangerous, absent minded operators. Who are all looking for solutions to non existent problems. And who think a $10 dollar doohickey can make up for poor gun handling.
And because some people can't leave well enough alone....
Originally Posted By: CT8
Glock perfection, if why so many after market gizmos?
So fast buck artists can quench the thirst of dangerous, absent minded operators. Who are all looking for solutions to non existent problems. And who think a $10 dollar doohickey can make up for poor gun handling.
And because some people can't leave well enough alone....
Originally Posted By: Balrog006
And because some people can't leave well enough alone....
Very true. That and they can't shoot in the first place. So why not blame it on the gun? I mean it can't be them, right?
And because some people can't leave well enough alone....
Very true. That and they can't shoot in the first place. So why not blame it on the gun? I mean it can't be them, right?
JHZR2
Staff member
I like the idea of this item. Finger off the trigger, sure... Until someone has a bad day and gets some stupid thing stuck where it shouldn't be, and it goes off.
People carry guns to offset risks to a person, in the infinitesimally small chance that they will have to fire in anger.
Even if there's an infinitesimally small chance that you're having a horribly bad day, didn't get sleep, have FOD in the holster, etc, it's beyond easier to keep a thumb on the rear of the slide and keep that muscle memory...
It seems like this item would be a no brainier that would be obvious to have fit as OE, if it truly doesn't compromise reliability.
I'm all for finger off the trigger, away from the guard, but in the minuscule chance that something else is occurring, isn't this another layer of insurance?
People carry guns to offset risks to a person, in the infinitesimally small chance that they will have to fire in anger.
Even if there's an infinitesimally small chance that you're having a horribly bad day, didn't get sleep, have FOD in the holster, etc, it's beyond easier to keep a thumb on the rear of the slide and keep that muscle memory...
It seems like this item would be a no brainier that would be obvious to have fit as OE, if it truly doesn't compromise reliability.
I'm all for finger off the trigger, away from the guard, but in the minuscule chance that something else is occurring, isn't this another layer of insurance?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the idea of this item. Finger off the trigger, sure... Until someone has a bad day and gets some stupid thing stuck where it shouldn't be, and it goes off.
People carry guns to offset risks to a person, in the infinitesimally small chance that they will have to fire in anger.
Even if there's an infinitesimally small chance that you're having a horribly bad day, didn't get sleep, have FOD in the holster, etc, it's beyond easier to keep a thumb on the rear of the slide and keep that muscle memory...
It seems like this item would be a no brainier that would be obvious to have fit as OE, if it truly doesn't compromise reliability.
I'm all for finger off the trigger, away from the guard, but in the minuscule chance that something else is occurring, isn't this another layer of insurance?
I pretty much agree. While I'm still not for or against it, it seems that most here are focusing on trigger finger control- and I don't think that's what this little gizmo was created for.
I like the idea of this item. Finger off the trigger, sure... Until someone has a bad day and gets some stupid thing stuck where it shouldn't be, and it goes off.
People carry guns to offset risks to a person, in the infinitesimally small chance that they will have to fire in anger.
Even if there's an infinitesimally small chance that you're having a horribly bad day, didn't get sleep, have FOD in the holster, etc, it's beyond easier to keep a thumb on the rear of the slide and keep that muscle memory...
It seems like this item would be a no brainier that would be obvious to have fit as OE, if it truly doesn't compromise reliability.
I'm all for finger off the trigger, away from the guard, but in the minuscule chance that something else is occurring, isn't this another layer of insurance?
I pretty much agree. While I'm still not for or against it, it seems that most here are focusing on trigger finger control- and I don't think that's what this little gizmo was created for.
It looks like the bottom comes out maybe 1/4 inch. Under stress or speed you're not going to notice the gun is about to fire, even if your thumb is on the indicator. If you're slowly and carefully holstering, where the indicator would come in handy, I doubt you're going to have an ND anyway. It will do nothing for the two ND cases posted earlier. I'm just not seeing the benefit. If you feel you need this device you need a gun with a manual safety rather than an indicator.
Originally Posted By: hatt
If you're slowly and carefully holstering, where the indicator would come in handy, I doubt you're going to have an ND anyway.
Bingo. If someone cannot reholster a weapon without having it discharge on them, they shouldn't be carrying it in the first place.
If you're slowly and carefully holstering, where the indicator would come in handy, I doubt you're going to have an ND anyway.
Bingo. If someone cannot reholster a weapon without having it discharge on them, they shouldn't be carrying it in the first place.
JHZR2
Staff member
It wouldnt help the guy who caught his trigger when sitting in the car, shooting a hole in his butt...
But if this adds no viable reliability risk, and adds another level of insurance regarding safety, whats the issue?
People need to dissociate good handling practices from a feature that may reduce risk further in some circumstances.
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
But if this adds no viable reliability risk, and adds another level of insurance regarding safety, whats the issue?
People need to dissociate good handling practices from a feature that may reduce risk further in some circumstances.
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
It always makes me wonder when someone has to alter the design of one of the safest, best selling handguns in the world. Just so they can help prevent shooting themselves with it.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
It wouldnt help the guy who caught his trigger when sitting in the car, shooting a hole in his butt...
But if this adds no viable reliability risk, and adds another level of insurance regarding safety, whats the issue?
People need to dissociate good handling practices from a feature that may reduce risk further in some circumstances.
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
It wouldnt help the guy who caught his trigger when sitting in the car, shooting a hole in his butt...
But if this adds no viable reliability risk, and adds another level of insurance regarding safety, whats the issue?
People need to dissociate good handling practices from a feature that may reduce risk further in some circumstances.
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the idea of this item...
I'm glad you see the value too.
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
I like the idea of this item...
I'm glad you see the value too.
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
Why? Glock pistols already do everything they are supposed to. No gun makes provisions for a negligent operator..... Or should they.
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
Why? Glock pistols already do everything they are supposed to. No gun makes provisions for a negligent operator..... Or should they.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
It always makes me wonder when someone has to alter the design of one of the safest, best selling handguns in the world. Just so they can help prevent shooting themselves with it.
Right, because nothing else ever gets altered to add slight enhancements to performance or safety.
It always makes me wonder when someone has to alter the design of one of the safest, best selling handguns in the world. Just so they can help prevent shooting themselves with it.
Right, because nothing else ever gets altered to add slight enhancements to performance or safety.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
So let me get this straight.
- the trigger is intrinsically safe.
- there is zero way on earth anything could inadvertently cause it to be moved, and anything that did would be absolutely user error.
- an active device, i.e. one that must have proactive user intervention, could cause false senses of security.
- said active device, if left unpressed, would allow the gun to operate as designed
- pressed, the button allows a proactive user to obstruct the trigger, effectively a second, temporarily actuated safety, which works with opposite logic as the trigger (ie press to safe vs press (pull) to unsafe).
So the only false sense of security is if it is pressed, but not pressed hard enough, and FOD allows the trigger to be pulled. Yet in this case, the gun was operating in its standard design, as the FOD allowed the safety to unsafe and the striker to fire.
So there is by design no false sense of security. Just another level of failure steps required to induce a negative event. If it goes off the gun is merely operating by design.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
So let me get this straight.
- the trigger is intrinsically safe.
- there is zero way on earth anything could inadvertently cause it to be moved, and anything that did would be absolutely user error.
- an active device, i.e. one that must have proactive user intervention, could cause false senses of security.
- said active device, if left unpressed, would allow the gun to operate as designed
- pressed, the button allows a proactive user to obstruct the trigger, effectively a second, temporarily actuated safety, which works with opposite logic as the trigger (ie press to safe vs press (pull) to unsafe).
So the only false sense of security is if it is pressed, but not pressed hard enough, and FOD allows the trigger to be pulled. Yet in this case, the gun was operating in its standard design, as the FOD allowed the safety to unsafe and the striker to fire.
So there is by design no false sense of security. Just another level of failure steps required to induce a negative event. If it goes off the gun is merely operating by design.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
Why? Glock pistols already do everything they are supposed to. No gun makes provisions for a negligent operator..... Or should they.
Im not necessarily invoking this as a claim I am making, but a motion in the direction of trigger pull, that both unsafes and fires in successive motion is intrinsically more dangerous than a safety that requires a separate step/motion.
Guns with manual safeties require an active and separate step to be taken in order to engage.
The device in question is an active and separate step to be taken. Only difference is that the actuation isnt permanently on once actuated. This allows it to be used in a manner dedmed appropriate by a user, and still retain the readiness and ease of use of a glock pistol the rest of the time.
Im still not seeing a downside. This doesnt replace good procedures and training,nor does it inhibit intrinsic functionality.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I think glock should test these and install them from the factory if they do everything they are supposed to.
Why? Glock pistols already do everything they are supposed to. No gun makes provisions for a negligent operator..... Or should they.
Im not necessarily invoking this as a claim I am making, but a motion in the direction of trigger pull, that both unsafes and fires in successive motion is intrinsically more dangerous than a safety that requires a separate step/motion.
Guns with manual safeties require an active and separate step to be taken in order to engage.
The device in question is an active and separate step to be taken. Only difference is that the actuation isnt permanently on once actuated. This allows it to be used in a manner dedmed appropriate by a user, and still retain the readiness and ease of use of a glock pistol the rest of the time.
Im still not seeing a downside. This doesnt replace good procedures and training,nor does it inhibit intrinsic functionality.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
So let me get this straight.
- the trigger is intrinsically safe.
- there is zero way on earth anything could inadvertently cause it to be moved, and anything that did would be absolutely user error.
- an active device, i.e. one that must have proactive user intervention, could cause false senses of security.
- said active device, if left unpressed, would allow the gun to operate as designed
- pressed, the button allows a proactive user to obstruct the trigger, effectively a second, temporarily actuated safety, which works with opposite logic as the trigger (ie press to safe vs press (pull) to unsafe).
So the only false sense of security is if it is pressed, but not pressed hard enough, and FOD allows the trigger to be pulled. Yet in this case, the gun was operating in its standard design, as the FOD allowed the safety to unsafe and the striker to fire.
So there is by design no false sense of security. Just another level of failure steps required to induce a negative event. If it goes off the gun is merely operating by design.
I don't think you understood my post. I'm not arguing with you any longer. You don't even carry a gun. You have no dog in the fight.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I have to chuckle that the carry crowd of all folks, would be against something that would reduce an infinitesimally small risk to something even smaller, given that this really is the premise of carrying a weapon to begin with. Adding a feature that has no practical effect in terms of mass, size, or reliability, which may help prevent a (seemingly) stupid situation turn into a real problem, seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps a manual safety is a better choice for some. Lots of "perhaps", "should", etc., but nobody is anybody else. I cant foresee every single scenario where a striker fired gun could accidentally go off, and neither can anyone else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this device instills a false sense of security and leads to more NDs. There is no such thing as a no brainer when dealing with complex subjects.
So let me get this straight.
- the trigger is intrinsically safe.
- there is zero way on earth anything could inadvertently cause it to be moved, and anything that did would be absolutely user error.
- an active device, i.e. one that must have proactive user intervention, could cause false senses of security.
- said active device, if left unpressed, would allow the gun to operate as designed
- pressed, the button allows a proactive user to obstruct the trigger, effectively a second, temporarily actuated safety, which works with opposite logic as the trigger (ie press to safe vs press (pull) to unsafe).
So the only false sense of security is if it is pressed, but not pressed hard enough, and FOD allows the trigger to be pulled. Yet in this case, the gun was operating in its standard design, as the FOD allowed the safety to unsafe and the striker to fire.
So there is by design no false sense of security. Just another level of failure steps required to induce a negative event. If it goes off the gun is merely operating by design.
I don't think you understood my post. I'm not arguing with you any longer. You don't even carry a gun. You have no dog in the fight.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Right, because nothing else ever gets altered to add slight enhancements to performance or safety.
How do you know this gimmick "enhances" anything? You don't carry a gun. You're like a guy arguing over the best beer who doesn't even drink.
Right, because nothing else ever gets altered to add slight enhancements to performance or safety.
How do you know this gimmick "enhances" anything? You don't carry a gun. You're like a guy arguing over the best beer who doesn't even drink.
JHZR2
Staff member
So I take it there's no thoughtful response to my comments. Deflection.
What I do or not, and what permitting I would or would not have, or personal methods of firearm employment are not a matter of discussion on an internet forum.
Closed minds that cant anticipate any other situation where this could be useful? Ok.
What I do or not, and what permitting I would or would not have, or personal methods of firearm employment are not a matter of discussion on an internet forum.
Closed minds that cant anticipate any other situation where this could be useful? Ok.
A hole in the head can be useful in certain situations. It's nothing I'm going to plan my daily activities around. You can what if all day long. If you think this offers something, place an order. Since I see little to no benefit to me, I won't be placing an order. If I did think my Glocks needed an aftermarket indicator that I would then need to train myself to take advantage of I'd simply move onto a manual safety which offers numerous other "what if" benefits. I'm not married to any weapon system. My usually carry gun is a S&W J frame. If it's convenient to carry OWB sometimes I carry a compact Glock.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Closed minds that cant anticipate any other situation where this could be useful? Ok.
Translated.... People who practice safe gun handling, don't concern themselves with individuals who don't. Consequently can't come up with a satisfactory reason to apply this little trinket, OK.
Closed minds that cant anticipate any other situation where this could be useful? Ok.
Translated.... People who practice safe gun handling, don't concern themselves with individuals who don't. Consequently can't come up with a satisfactory reason to apply this little trinket, OK.
- Status
