I had a guy tell me that the SCD was a solution looking for a problem. What? People NDing while reholstering isn’t a problem? Thread drift but still, that really gets me.Originally Posted by spinmove_
I had a guy tell me that the SCD was a solution looking for a problem. What? People NDing while reholstering isn’t a problem? Thread drift but still, that really gets me.
I went for close to 30 years carrying Glocks without Tom's SCD...but once I installed one, I had to have them on each of my four Glocks. They may not be "necessary", but I find them to be a great piece of kit which I'd (now) be loathe to be without.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Many of us spent more of our lives driving around in vehicles without airbags than with with them, and we survived... But why not have that extra layer of security and protection if you can?
What's funny is that I have a prototype SCD that fits the G3 and G4 standard frames, so it persuaded me to pick up a Gen 3 17 (California) to go with it
Because in cars it isn't always about you. Sometimes some else runs into you. With a gun its all you. Know yourself, know the gun, know your gear and buy accordingly.
I don't have collapsible holsters, I don't own any piece of clothing with draw strings lower than the hoody. I always look and lift my shirt/sweater up when re holstering. I don't see a point to them for me. IF God forbid I have to pull it for self defense I ain't putting it anywhere until either the cops show up or the bad guy is super obviously dead. Like fell off a cliff, walked into spinning propeller blades, or fell head first into a working wood chipper...obvious
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Then don't use one.
But by your reasoning one could carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked with the same security and peace of mind, but who would do that? The only difference would be a more sensitive trigger but that wouldn't matter because your plan eliminates all the variables, right?
And for the record, I'm not trying to bust your balls or pick a fight... I'm just pointing out why so many of us prefer to have the extra layer of protection even if we may not ever need it.
None of which answered the question @GearFondler rhetorically asked, "why not have that extra layer of security and protection if you can?"
You don't want it, fine. You're mistake free and invincible, fine. But you didn't offer a reason why one shouldn't have it.
To each his own. I felt the same way about night sights for 30 years or so. And then I found a reason to have them and haven't looked back.
Not worth arguing over...so I'll leave it there.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I love the SCD. Initially if I recall correctly there was no way to legally export them from the United States so obviously I don't have any but I must have tried them on guns when I was in the US or something because I developed a strong attachment to them.
Anyway the big battle from my perspective is that you're fighting against twenty or thirty years of very successful branding from Glock, a company who has sold, I guess, several times as many units as TDG.
They spent years telling everyone they were safe as is, and people bought in en masse, and now you're swimming upstream trying to convince people that not only is an improvement available, but that they themselves were wrong in their previous assessment of their gun. And it's a particularly hard one, because frankly the auto pistol with no external safety as a safe gun is in my opinion a really counterintuitive concept. You have to let go of a bunch of very core ideas about what makes a machine safe to operate, and I think part of how Glock achieved this was by convincing people that Glocks were safe AS LONG AS YOU WERE SERIOUS TACTICAL LEGIT.
It's like selling a performance car which has no neutral by convincing buyers that a REAL driver is only going to start the engine to DRIVE. Like a PROFESSIONAL. And at first everyone is like "that's dumb" but otherwise the car kicks ass and it slowly comes to dominate the market, but everyone who has one, had to join the no-neutral cult to buy in.
So now, you need to convince all the buyers that actually, either the cult was always wrong and they got suckered, or the cult might be right for professional racers, but that's not what you are and you need to spend money to admit it.
Ironically, I think the harder it is to convince someone of something, the harder it is to win them back. You'd think it would be the opposite: you wear someone down and they finally agree the sky is red, but the tiniest bit of evidence and they're back to team blue. But in my experience, once you get someone to swallow a really hard pill, they're never going to admit it was a waste of time.
Tough row to hoe.
This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff
Shit happens.
Well how safe is safe? Surely having an empty chamber is safer still. Or keep all the ammo in a separate pocket altogether.
It's not exactly like the difference between an unloaded gun in a safe with no one around vs twirling a cocked 1911 on your finger like in a western movie while downing a liter of whiskey.
Personally I don't care. Carry the gun disassembled in different pockets and have someone else carry the ammo. I'm fine with that. I'm simply answering the question of "why not have the extra layer of security"
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote