Glock Drop Safety Test - Question

[Cool Breeze]

I tried this because of the Travis Haley Skimmer thread. I am not an armorer and have not gone to the school. I tried this on a Gen3 Glock 17 and Gen3 Glock 26. THIS TEST WAS DONE WITHOUT A SKIMMER TRIGGER. I do not own that trigger and just wanted to see if an unmodified glock could pass this test.

I basically did the same test as in the aforementioned thread - I installed the armorer plate and used a glock tool to press down on the trigger bar/cruciform to see if the striker would release. Both pistols had a OEM Glock minus connector in them. Both pistols had 3/4 or more of the striker tab covered by the trigger bar's cruciform.

On the Glock 26 no pressure that I was able to exert in any form of poking around in there enabled the striker to be released.

On the Glock 17, it was another story. The striker could be released with relatively little pressure downward. Thinking it was a defective part(s), I tried this with multiple combinations of connectors, trigger bars, and strikers with the same results. I'm pretty good at deductive reasoning and I can't seem to understand this.

Is this something I should be concerned with???????? As I said, I'm not an armorer and am not sure this is even a legitimate test for the drop safety as all the googling in the world by myself has not enabled me to find it on the internet. Any thoughts?

[Wayne Dobbs]

The Glock test does NOT involve depressing the trigger bar with any tool to determine if sufficient engagement exists between the striker lug and cruciform plate. The test is solely based on a visual verification of adequate engagement between the surfaces. Also recall that even if the striker were to be released, the firing pin safety will also prevent firing as long as the trigger is not pressed rearward.

[167]

Sounds like a problem to me. If it is a parts issue, it may not be with any of the ones you listed but with the trigger mechanism housing (since that is the actual drop safety part). Compare the part from the G26 to the one in the G17 paying special attention to the area immediately behind the ejector and see if there is any difference.

Pics would be nice too.

[vandal]

Resurrecting this because I just received another Glock trigger that reduces pretravel. Slow learner. I bought this flat, straight trigger for the shape, the pretravel elimination was not something advertised and I'm concerned that elimination of the trigger pretravel defeats one (and practically-speaking, both) internal safeties.

Doing some comparisons with stock Glocks, those with trigger mechanism housing marked with "2" (which are actually older I think) can't easily (if at all) have the trigger bar depressed with a tool through the armorer plate, while the newer housing (marked with "1") can. I have not put calipers on them to see where the differences are -- they look the same visually.

I think that when you have a trigger with most the pre-travel removed, you can't rely on the firing pin safety as a "backup" for the trigger bar being depressed: Due to the ramp in the housing if the trigger bar can be pushed down it also moves back, disabling the firing pin safety simultaneously assuming it was just on the edge of that FPS when at rest. I can easily witness this behavior through the magwell while depressing the trigger bar with a tool. In that case firing pin safety is actually only effective in case of breakage of the lug on the firing pin, not in conjunction with the trigger bar dropping.

If the design of the drop safety is basically a ledge that prevents the trigger bar from moving down and releasing the striker when G-forces(?) would otherwise be moving it down, then why has Glock changed the design of the housing in a way that the bar can now be depressed more easily (if that's an accurate statement)?

It seems clear to me that with the pre-travel largely eliminated that the striker is now kept under enough force that should it be released by a drop (assuming the drop safety allowed it) that it would have enough spring tension to detonate the primer. The only question is how much G force would it take to drop the trigger bar once the pretravel has been largely eliminated? If my armorer plate/tool is a valid test -- not much! I'm trying to imagine how much force it would take to match the small amount of force/leverage I apply with the tool -- would pistol-whipping a skull be enough (just for a plausible example, not something I plan to do.)

[GRV]

IMO if a trigger (stock, aftermarket, whatever) fails the so-call drop safety check (pressing down on the cruciform while the trigger is forward), then said gun in its present form is unsafe. Unsuitable for carry, period. It reflects a serious failure of part of Glock's safety design.

[vandal]

That's what I would have thought but I read elsewhere (can't find the reference now) that testing the drop safety does not involve actually pressing down on it, just looking to see if there is "adequate engagement" of the bar and the ledge. So what constitutes adequate? Complete engagement? 50%? 10%?


IMO if a trigger (stock, aftermarket, whatever) fails the so-call drop safety check (pressing down on the cruciform while the trigger is forward), then said gun in its present form is unsafe. Unsuitable for carry, period. It reflects a serious failure of part of Glock's safety design.

[LOKNLOD]

That's what I would have thought but I read elsewhere (can't find the reference now)

In the 2nd post of this thread?

[vandal]

So that's why it seemed so familiar. Short term memory loss is what was I saying?


In the 2nd post of this thread?

[GRV]

That's what I would have thought but I read elsewhere (can't find the reference now) that testing the drop safety does not involve actually pressing down on it, just looking to see if there is "adequate engagement" of the bar and the ledge. So what constitutes adequate? Complete engagement? 50%? 10%?

That was a misunderstanding. Checking for sear engagement does not involve pressing down on the trigger bar. Checking the drop safety certainly does. However, the usual drop safety check doesn't involve using the armorer's plate and doing it with the gun fully assembled, as the OP did. That procedure is part of the sear engagement check, hence the confusion. For the drop safety check, you're just supposed to press down on the cruciform in the frame (field stripped), with the trigger bar forward, and make sure it doesn't move down.* Nevertheless, the OP's method is actually quite a wise idea, and I think I'll add that to my sear engagement check. In reality it will move a tiny bit down, but its negligible. Doing it with the slide on and the armorer's plate will guarantee that "negligible" is really negligible. The usual check is good since you can do it every time the gun is field stripped, but this extra check is worth the second or two on the occasions you already have the armorer's plate on for a sear engagement check.

*If you don't understand the proper procedure, don't do it, because you'll wear the polymer out behind your trigger when you go to pull the trigger from this position unless you hold the bar forward. Yada, yada, yada.

[GRV]

To be clear though, this "enhanced" drop safety check should not be a full replacement for the usual one in my opinion, not only because of inconvenience, but also because the usual drop safety check verifies that the drop safety prevents the trigger bar from lowering even when it is as far to the rear as the trigger safety will allow it to go without the trigger being pressed. When the trigger bar is under spring tension from the striker, as it is the case when the slide is on, the drop safety is actually even more secure. However, you want it to be secure in the position mentioned earlier because it means even if the trigger bumped backwards you'd be fine as long as your trigger safety was okay. In short, the combination of the trigger safety and drop safety completely dimensionally constrain/lock the trigger bar, the unlocking of which can only be accomplished by pressing on the center of the trigger face. This is the essence of the Glock safety design, and this is what you're testing with the usual drop safety test. The extra check with the armorer's plate covers a little extra ground, but doesn't cover all the same ground that the usual check does.

[vandal]

All of this was helpful. To decide whether eliminating the pre-travel really defeated the safeties with this trigger, I decided that practical test was the best.

Racked the slide on an empty gun, verified that the trigger bar was forward (gap between the trigger safety and the frame) and then pistol-whipped my carpet with it. Very first time: trigger is back (trigger safety against the frame), trigger is dead, striker is forward. On a stock Glock the trigger safety also prevents the trigger bar from moving far enough back to disengage the firing pin safety, but with the short travel on this trigger the firing pin safety is clearly disabled (looking through the magazine well.)

I was able to repeat that result by dropping the pistol from 4' onto my carpet so it hit with the bottom of the grip first (no magazine FWIW). Out of 10 tries (most of which had the pistol landing on its side so those don't really count) I wound up with a dead trigger again (released striker) one more time. When that occurred I looked through the magazine well and the trigger bar again all the way back and the firing pin safety clearly depressed.

[Cool Breeze]

I totally forgot about this little test I did. I was hoping other members here would try with their Glocks and stock parts to see if mine was just an anomaly. I still can't determine if my Glock is messed up or not. Anyone else try this?

[GRV]

I totally forgot about this little test I did. I was hoping other members here would try with their Glocks and stock parts to see if mine was just an anomaly. I still can't determine if my Glock is messed up or not. Anyone else try this?

I installed the armorer's plate on my G17 Gen4, racked the slide, then tried pressing cruciform down with my punch. It did not budge.

While, as stated, this particular variant of the drop safety test is not in the armorer's class curriculum, I feel pretty confident saying a Glock that fails this test is unsafe and needs to be inspected.

[Cool Breeze]

I installed the armorer's plate on my G17 Gen4, racked the slide, then tried pressing cruciform down with my punch. It did not budge.

While, as stated, this particular variant of the drop safety test is not in the armorer's class curriculum, I feel pretty confident saying a Glock that fails this test is unsafe and needs to be inspected.

Thanks Dove - much appreciated.

[L-2]

Same results with my G17gen3 as Dove's post #13.