Glocks and the Thumb Safety

[willie]

Two questions: would thumb safeties on Glocks reduce the frequency of negligent discharges among law enforcement users? And would thumb safeties hinder officers by increasing time needed to fire their weapon. I personally am satisfied with the original design.

[Jeep]

Statistically there is bound to be some reduction in ND's and some increase in time to fire. In both cases the effect would probably be seen in the more poorly trained officers.

However, as the 1911 shows, a properly designed thumb safety should cause no material increase in deployment time.

Personally I've seen too many NDs and too many fingers on or near triggers when they should be nowhere near them. I like thumb safeties (if properly designed). I even like the Beretta 92FS safety. I think people can be easily trained to operate them and putting them off and on becomes second nature.

[Bucky]

I like thumb safeties (if properly designed). I even like the Beretta 92FS safety. I think people can be easily trained to operate them and putting them off and on becomes second nature.


The problem I have with the 92 safety is that my short thumbs cannot reach the safety when gripping the gun normally. I'm not sure if training with a contorted and / or awkward grip could reasonably overcome that. I have no issues with 1911 safeties though, and shoot them pretty regularly. There is a reason most recent guns that, when they do adopt a safety, mimic the 1911 positioning and mode of operation.

19152

[Gray222]

Safeties on a "drop safe" pistol are tantamount to training wheels.

The ND's which do occur in LE, happen because of the lack of training and proper equipment vetting, not because of actual "accidents" - it is someone's negligence, either in equipment, training or some combination of events which should have been foreseen.

A safety on a pistol which does not require a safety by its very design - striker fired / drop safe - should not hinder the application of the pistol with proper training, but is completely unnecessary.

[Jeep]

The problem I have with the 92 safety is that my short thumbs cannot reach the safety when gripping the gun normally. I'm not sure if training with a contorted and / or awkward grip could reasonably overcome that. I have no issues with 1911 safeties though, and shoot them pretty regularly. There is a reason most recent guns that, when they do adopt a safety, mimic the 1911 positioning and mode of operation.



That is a very fair point--and a legitimate know on the 92FS. Personally I prefer 1911 positioning as well, though thankfully my thumb can reach the Beretta safety.

[lordhamster]

Safeties on a "drop safe" pistol are tantamount to training wheels.

The ND's which do occur in LE, happen because of the lack of training and proper equipment vetting, not because of actual "accidents" - it is someone's negligence, either in equipment, training or some combination of events which should have been foreseen.

A safety on a pistol which does not require a safety by its very design - striker fired / drop safe - should not hinder the application of the pistol with proper training, but is completely unnecessary.

I would not want a thumb safety on my Glock, but I could see some crusty old 1911 shooters wanting all of their carry pistols to have the same manual of arms to avoid having to re-train. Nothing wrong with having the option.

Because if good training can prevent accidents, then good training can also prevent forgetting to sweep the safety off before firing.

[Camovan]

Another take on thumb safety and ND. I like one for the sole reason of when the firearm is not on my body. A few times a year I find myself with the need to remove the gun and feel more comfortable with leaving an unattended firearm with a thumb safety engaged (as one layer of security, definitely not the only layer). Like when I am on my boat, with my kids, and I want to go for a swim with them. Is it an everyday need, certainly not but it is a feature that would get used from time to time. I EDC a G19 but take my Shield w/TS if I know in advance I might need to remove it from my person, I would like the option to make the choice between the two based on other factors instead.

[Jeep]

Safeties on a "drop safe" pistol are tantamount to training wheels.

The ND's which do occur in LE, happen because of the lack of training and proper equipment vetting, not because of actual "accidents" - it is someone's negligence, either in equipment, training or some combination of events which should have been foreseen.

A safety on a pistol which does not require a safety by its very design - striker fired / drop safe - should not hinder the application of the pistol with proper training, but is completely unnecessary.

Voodoo:

I hear what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. I'm also not a cop and am not about to opine what cops should carry. However, I see a lot of cops and other LEO's shoot at my local range and well as others and my estimate is that well over half of those cops/LEO's and 95% of others still need training wheels.

I also like training wheels for myself. I've been shooting for over 50 years now and have shot a lot of weapons and a lot of rounds in my life. However, I've found that I can still make mistakes. I've never had a ND but I did come somewhat close once and thus I like an extra safety measure if it doesn't cause a material delay.

It's often said here that you can't fix software problems with a hardware solution. That's no doubt true--but you can mitigate the problem and doing so can be important.

But, to each his or her own.

[spinmove_]

Another take on thumb safety and ND. I like one for the sole reason of when the firearm is not on my body. A few times a year I find myself with the need to remove the gun and feel more comfortable with leaving an unattended firearm with a thumb safety engaged (as one layer of security, definitely not the only layer). Like when I am on my boat, with my kids, and I want to go for a swim with them. Is it an everyday need, certainly not but it is a feature that would get used from time to time. I EDC a G19 but take my Shield w/TS if I know in advance I might need to remove it from my person, I would like the option to make the choice between the two based on other factors instead.

Would it not simply be a better idea to stow that pistol in a safe whilst swimming?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[lordhamster]

Would it not simply be a better idea to stow that pistol in a safe whilst swimming?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Too risky, you never know when Pirates may attack.

19153

[Camovan]

Most definitely. I'm just pointing out that sometimes things happen where it may be nice to have as an extra level of safety. I can throw the gun in a lockable stowage on the boat and do, I just personally feel more comfortable engaging the safety when it is not on body and unattended, locked or not. Irrational, probably, but given an option between the two I would take the TS version every time. I realize I am a minority in this and thats OK, probably why a G19 w/TS version will never be offered retail :)

[Camovan]

Too risky, you never know when Pirates may attack.

Not possible, I am the pirate.

[spinmove_]

Most definitely. I'm just pointing out that sometimes things happen where it may be nice to have as an extra level of safety. I can throw the gun in a lockable stowage on the boat and do, I just personally feel more comfortable engaging the safety when it is not on body and unattended, locked or not. Irrational, probably, but given an option between the two I would take the TS version every time. I realize I am a minority in this and thats OK, probably why a G19 w/TS version will never be offered retail :)

Fair enough. Wouldn't be my choice, but to each their own. Was merely curious.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[MattyD380]

Safeties on a "drop safe" pistol are tantamount to training wheels.

The ND's which do occur in LE, happen because of the lack of training and proper equipment vetting, not because of actual "accidents" - it is someone's negligence, either in equipment, training or some combination of events which should have been foreseen.

A safety on a pistol which does not require a safety by its very design - striker fired / drop safe - should not hinder the application of the pistol with proper training, but is completely unnecessary.

A series-80 1911 is technically drop safe when cocked. Yet I think most would agree you need a thumb safety to carry/handle the gun safely.

If that's true... why is a thumb safety on a striker fired gun such a travesty? Yeah, 5.5lbs is a little heavier than most 1911 triggers. But not by much.

At the end of the day, I have to concede that--like all hominids since australopithecus--modern man can (and will) make mistakes with his (her) hands. No amount of training can completely alleviate this fact.

[lordhamster]

Most definitely. I'm just pointing out that sometimes things happen where it may be nice to have as an extra level of safety. I can throw the gun in a lockable stowage on the boat and do, I just personally feel more comfortable engaging the safety when it is not on body and unattended, locked or not. Irrational, probably, but given an option between the two I would take the TS version every time. I realize I am a minority in this and thats OK, probably why a G19 w/TS version will never be offered retail :)

There may also be just plain collectors who want the same exact friggin' model the military carries. I don't know why the thumb safety spawns such visceral hatred from some folks. There are plenty of reasons why one might WANT a thumb safety and it is noboy's business. Like you said though, glock may not see enough of a cost/benefit ratio to distribute these models.

I'm curious to know the ratio of Thumb Safety/Non-thumb safety models S&W has sold with their M&P line.

[Duelist]

A series-80 1911 is technically drop safe when cocked. Yet I think most would agree you need a thumb safety to carry/handle the gun safely.

If that's true... why is a thumb safety on a striker fired gun such a travesty? Yeah, 5.5lbs is a little heavier than most 1911 triggers. But not by much.

At the end of the day, I have to concede that--like all hominids since australopithecus--modern man can (and will) make mistakes with his (her) hands. No amount of training can completely alleviate this fact.

The 1911 was not originally designed with a thumb safety, or a grip safety. Both were added at the request of tHe Army, which at he time had a lot of guys riding horses. Grip safety was a drop safety, in case a guy dropped his pistol from horseback - the grip safety auto engages, and its less likely to discharge if something snags the trigger on the way down. Thumb safety is for when the troop needs to holster a cocked and chambered pistol with one hand and control a horse that may be moving around with the other.

Nothing wrong with manual safeties. If they make sense to/for you, get one, or get a gun that comes with one. If they don't mean anything to you, get something else - but that doesn't mean that they don't make sense or are useless.

[JHC]

A series-80 1911 is technically drop safe when cocked. Yet I think most would agree you need a thumb safety to carry/handle the gun safely.

If that's true... why is a thumb safety on a striker fired gun such a travesty? Yeah, 5.5lbs is a little heavier than most 1911 triggers. But not by much.

At the end of the day, I have to concede that--like all hominids since australopithecus--modern man can (and will) make mistakes with his (her) hands. No amount of training can completely alleviate this fact.

I like the dictum of "on sights, safety off, off sights safety on" and I think it can be well applied in pistol manipulations and movement as it is with long guns of course.

There can be falls, gear snags, "hands on" struggles, gun snatches, etc etc etc that come into play.

[GJM]

The fastest way for OEM thumb safety equipped Glock pistols to reach the general public consumer, would likely be if a Glock somehow prevails in the MHS contract. I could see them marketing "the MHS model," just as pictured above, similar to how many think the Gen 5 will be a 17/19M.

[Gray222]

Voodoo:

I hear what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. I'm also not a cop and am not about to opine what cops should carry. However, I see a lot of cops and other LEO's shoot at my local range and well as others and my estimate is that well over half of those cops/LEO's and 95% of others still need training wheels.

I also like training wheels for myself. I've been shooting for over 50 years now and have shot a lot of weapons and a lot of rounds in my life. However, I've found that I can still make mistakes. I've never had a ND but I did come somewhat close once and thus I like an extra safety measure if it doesn't cause a material delay.

It's often said here that you can't fix software problems with a hardware solution. That's no doubt true--but you can mitigate the problem and doing so can be important.

But, to each his or her own.

I will try to articulate the best I can as this is a touchy subject which applies to a lot of people who shoot and/or do anything which requires competence.

You cannot, normally, fix a software problem with a hardware solution, this has been shown to be true for the overwhelming, vast majority, of people in regards to particular skill sets - in this case general use of a pistol in a persons everyday life. To understand this we need to understand the various levels of competence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence), after this is understood, then you need to ask yourself, "do I have a training issue I am trying to fix with a hardware problem?" If the real, no bullshit self assessment is "yes" then do not purchase anything else. Do the work in order to get better at what you are doing. This means discipline, this means hardships, this mean no insta-famous celeb status of cerakotes or TiN items. You have to seriously work your ass off in order to get to the next level of competence. Once you do this, you need to keep working and maintaining your skill set. All of these skills come with a specific level of upkeep cost. Want that sub 1 second shot from concealment to a 6 inch steel plate at 10 yards which you could repeat on demand? You'll be doing it every single day to keep that skill set viable, trust me, I know.

When you see people making mistakes it is because they are not willing to invest the amount of time required to raise their competence in a particular skill set. This may be because they do not believe they need it, maybe they do not believe they ever will. Common sense will tell us that these people, who do not want to invest the time in order to gain competence, need to be able to function within a particular set of parameters. This is a catch-22 as giving them a mitigation procedure allows them to further justify not putting the time in.

"The NY1 trigger will stop people from ND'ing their pistol."

"It's drop safe so if I drop it it won't go off"

"The guns grip is too big or small so I can't shoot it well."

"Ammo..."

"Why can't I walk around with the gun cocked?"

"The double action is too heavy and it makes my first shot low and left."

...and more

Most of the arguments made for mitigation are counter to the arguments made for further training and continuing training, especially for LEOs. I see it all the time, check the box, qualify once or twice a year, that's it. Other than that they don't shoot, they don't train, and the only other times they pull their pistols is when they are on a hot call. Zero discipline, not just in execution, but in practice. Then we see people asking why there are bad shoots, why it takes two or three magazines to stop a violent criminal.

What is usually the turning point? When a person either survives or knows someone who had a very close call (or was killed) due to lack of competency in a particular skill set. I have personally seen this "rebirth" or "waking up" or whatever other term which describes a person experiencing something so moving which creates in them the will to devote time to gaining competence in a particular skill set. Until then, a person either goes about their daily life not thinking about these skill sets, as they have not been needed (yet) or they figured out beforehand that they needed it and started to train, but maybe not in a particularly extensive (or competent) manner.

What needs to happen, and what does happen, are the major reasons why we have "training wheels" and not competent practitioners, the standards are made up this way on purpose. Why? Because it would be too hard and too many people would fail otherwise.

Let them fail. Take away the training wheels after a specific period of introduction and let people fail. They will either fail and will never have the competency to get better, as they themselves will not seek our training or put the effort into training. Those who do not fail and put the effort into training will succeed, and out of them have a qualification process to only have the top percentages move on. This is obviously not a viable method of doing things in our society right now, especially not for LE. But that is what is required in order to have the right level of competency in a particular field. Failure, hardship, a difficult climb to the bottom of the ladder and a difficult upkeep. If you consider what other professions have this process in place already, you will quickly understand why they are the best at what they do. You should also quickly understand that most LE agencies have people at the top of the command chain who are so very incompetent in these particular skill sets, while giving weight to skill sets which do not matter even remotely as much. This is a deficiency in modern policing (one which I have shined light on at any given opportunity), and needs to be rejected as a commonly accepted method of supervising and training LEOs. Consider for a moment someone who is extremely competent in the pistol shooting skill set becomes a chief, do you think that person is going to push for more report writing training or more pistol shooting skill development?

For the average CCW citizen, this is no different, except the standards are self-imposed and can only become greater either with training or an event heavy enough to change the way a person thinks about a particular skill set (willingness).

Who would have thought this all boils down to mindset? :D

[Caballoflaco]

Safeties on a "drop safe" pistol are tantamount to training wheels.

The ND's which do occur in LE, happen because of the lack of training and proper equipment vetting, not because of actual "accidents" - it is someone's negligence, either in equipment, training or some combination of events which should have been foreseen.

A safety on a pistol which does not require a safety by its very design - striker fired / drop safe - should not hinder the application of the pistol with proper training, but is completely unnecessary.

What do you think about safeties as one more line of defense in a gun grab type situation?

I know we should all train firearms retention, but the bad guy gets a vote too. I like the idea that with a safety there is one more step for for someone to use my gun to kill me, and if my job involved having to open carry I would really consider carrying something with a safety.

Eta: the one caveat is that any safety I have on a pistol must be the ergonomic equivalent of the 1911. The optional thumb safety is the most interesting aspect of the Hudson pistol for me.

[MistWolf]

I would not want a thumb safety on my Glock, but I could see some crusty old 1911 shooters wanting all of their carry pistols to have the same manual of arms to avoid having to re-train. Nothing wrong with having the option.

Because if good training can prevent accidents, then good training can also prevent forgetting to sweep the safety off before firing.

I'm a crusty old 1911 shooter and if I had a Glock, I wouldn't want a thumb safety on it. The on thing the Glock got right was moving the grip safety to the trigger


Another take on thumb safety and ND. I like one for the sole reason of when the firearm is not on my body. A few times a year I find myself with the need to remove the gun and feel more comfortable with leaving an unattended firearm with a thumb safety engaged (as one layer of security, definitely not the only layer). Like when I am on my boat, with my kids, and I want to go for a swim with them. Is it an everyday need, certainly not but it is a feature that would get used from time to time. I EDC a G19 but take my Shield w/TS if I know in advance I might need to remove it from my person, I would like the option to make the choice between the two based on other factors instead.

When I remove my EDC handgun (almost always the PPQ) for similar reasons, it stays in the holster. I use holsters that cover the trigger completely. I have a bag that I keep my computer in when traveling. When visiting, I put my holstered pistol in the bag



The 1911 was not originally designed with a thumb safety, or a grip safety. Both were added at the request of tHe Army, which at he time had a lot of guys riding horses. Grip safety was a drop safety, in case a guy dropped his pistol from horseback - the grip safety auto engages, and its less likely to discharge if something snags the trigger on the way down. Thumb safety is for when the troop needs to holster a cocked and chambered pistol with one hand and control a horse that may be moving around with the other.

Nothing wrong with manual safeties. If they make sense to/for you, get one, or get a gun that comes with one. If they don't mean anything to you, get something else - but that doesn't mean that they don't make sense or are useless.

As I recall, Browning's original submission had a grip safety and the thumb safety was added at the request of the Army. I once read that contrary to popular belief, Browning intended the 1911 to be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber and thumb cocked like the Colt Single Action Army

[Duelist]

As I recall, Browning's original submission had a grip safety and the thumb safety was added at the request of the Army. I once read that contrary to popular belief, Browning intended the 1911 to be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber and thumb cocked like the Colt Single Action Army

Not the 1905 pistol tested by Army in 1907, at least:
http://www.nramuseum.com/guns/the-galleries/world-war-i-and-firearms-innovation/case-36-great-inventors/colt-model-1905-45-automatic-pistol.aspx

[Gray222]

What do you think about safeties as one more line of defense in a gun grab type situation?

I know we should all train firearms retention, but the bad guy gets a vote too. I like the idea that with a safety there is one more step for for someone to use my gun to kill me, and if my job involved having to open carry I would really consider carrying something with a safety.

Eta: the one caveat is that any safety I have on a pistol must be the ergonomic equivalent of the 1911. The optional thumb safety is the most interesting aspect of the Hudson pistol for me.

https://i.imgflip.com/1ubmw3.jpg

Seriously though, my duty safariland 7ts has three levels of retention. I'd have to literally be unconscious for a person to take my pistol out of it without me getting hands on them first and a blade in them second.

[JHC]

I once read that contrary to popular belief, Browning intended the 1911 to be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber and thumb cocked like the Colt Single Action Army

I've read a couple "historian" sort of 1911 buffs detail that idea out. I find it pretty convincing. Less of a leap from the SAA manual of arms.

[Robinson]

I would not want a thumb safety on my Glock, but I could see some crusty old 1911 shooters wanting all of their carry pistols to have the same manual of arms to avoid having to re-train.

Listen junior... :)

I would want either a thumb safety or a Gadget on a Glock if I were carrying it AIWB. Otherwise I don't think it's essential, but yes I might actually prefer it. But amazingly, as a crusty old 1911 shooter whenever I shoot a Glock I don't seem to have any trouble with the thumb safety not being there.

The thumb safety used by S&W on some of the M&P models actually seems pretty well executed to me.

[JHC]

The fastest way for OEM thumb safety equipped Glock pistols to reach the general public consumer, would likely be if a Glock somehow prevails in the MHS contract. I could see them marketing "the MHS model," just as pictured above, similar to how many think the Gen 5 will be a 17/19M.

Fastest or only way. I'm satisfied with them as is but if I could. OTOH, if it was a very flat to the frame implementation like the slide release is, then no way Jose. That works well for the slide but I wouldn't want a flat safety on it that couldn't be run like a 1911's.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said this before - the one time I almost got shot was from a guy holstering a 1911. Obviously, safety was off when it should have been on and he pulled the damn trigger.

I shoot a 1911 and don't have problems with the safety vs. switching to the Glock without one. But that's only under match 'stress'. Repetition again, we do see folks who are well trained - forget the safety at times. I commented that it was a touch more likely in shooting from an unusual position. Taking the gun out of a box, or not just standing square to the target and waiting for the peep. The motor memory program is very specific and starts with the upright, let's draw position unless you really train in the not usual, IMHO.

As far as retention, yeah, if my gun is grabbed - maybe I get some more time if the safety is on - vs. Oops, it didn't go bang. Which is more likely vs. situation? Who knows.

Back to my usual position point - I recall that the red dot tests found that finding the dot is easy with practice from the usual position but with unusual positions, folks had some trouble at times.

[Camovan]

When I remove my EDC handgun (almost always the PPQ) for similar reasons, it stays in the holster. I use holsters that cover the trigger completely. I have a bag that I keep my computer in when traveling. When visiting, I put my holstered pistol in the bag


I have a holster that comes off easy to do this with that I don't really like, I also have a holster that is a PIA to remove (actually easy to remove but harder to discreetly put back on while sitting in a car) but is my favorite holster. Again, this is a choice I need to make in the morning and it would be easier if I didn't have too. After a quick reread I see the OP asked specifically about LEO use so I am probably going to bow out of the thread. That said, I might pick up one or three of the GLOCK sport holsters and keep them in the boat/truck etc so they do have full trigger guards when they are lonely.

ETA: I could definitely see agencies other than the Army requesting TS Glocks now that they know the MHS gun is in their repertoire, so who know's maybe soon™ they will be a thing.

[MistWolf]

I agree that removing a holster and putting it back on can be a pain, but I figure it beats the alternative

[MattyD380]

Nothing wrong with manual safeties. If they make sense to/for you, get one, or get a gun that comes with one. If they don't mean anything to you, get something else - but that doesn't mean that they don't make sense or are useless.

Well said.


The 1911 was not originally designed with a thumb safety, or a grip safety. Both were added at the request of tHe Army, which at he time had a lot of guys riding horses. Grip safety was a drop safety, in case a guy dropped his pistol from horseback - the grip safety auto engages, and its less likely to discharge if something snags the trigger on the way down. Thumb safety is for when the troop needs to holster a cocked and chambered pistol with one hand and control a horse that may be moving around with the other.

I mean, if you're not going to carry a round in the chamber... I guess there's really no need for a thumb safety. So it makes sense, I suppose.

The thing that gets me about Glocks/striker fired guns... I struggle to see them as not SAO guns. Yet, for some reason, they get a "pass" on certain things that normally apply to operating a SAO gun safely. That's me, though. And again--it's a free country. Carry the gun you want to carry. Just... be careful.

[Wondering Beard]

I think we can say with a great deal of certainty that the folks on this forum are highly likely to handle themselves with or without a safety, that the decision to have, or not, a thumb safety will likely be thought out and trained for. From that point of view, whatever you (aka people on this forum reading this thread) decide will likely be fine.

Now, when it comes to new shooters, or just folks who don't train much, or those who belong in Dunning-Kruger club, the thumb safety isn't necessarily that much of a good thing, much less a panacea. We all know a bunch people who easily confuse "drop magazine, then rack the slide to unload" with "rack the slide, then drop magazine to unload" and have the resulting loud noise. Now add a thumb safety to the procedural list of things to do administratively and tactically and the odds of NDs increase, unless there is thorough training (which there should always be anyway, but that's another story). I was told by a Viet Nam War vet that soldiers, when 1911s were still issued, easily had NDs because they got confused by the manual of arms (and the absence of appropriate training) and screwed up the 'when' of putting on or off the safety and pulling the trigger. Maybe the guy that told me this was wrong, but he is a very squared away guy that has had his share of fights and is known by a few here, so I trust what he told me.

I personally like 1911s and thumb safeties but unless it is truly 1911 like (which, for me, means I get to have my hand really high up the gun by using the safety as a ledge for my thumb), I see no point in putting one on a Glock.

This is just the opinion of a nobody, who is fine being nobody, and worth exactly what you paid for it. :-)