TexasCHLforum.com

Give One Good Reason Why Not If Your Answer NO WAY!

Why would I???

The integral safeties available now seem to work just fine...

I've never had a problem with it...

And the safety I have between my ears is the best one out of the four you actually do have...

And actually keeping the booger hooker out of the trigger thing helps a whole heap as well...

I bought the Glock 23 with the Internal Locking System, and I have to admit that I haven't used it. It was my first gun, so I thought the ILS would equate to a "higher level of safety". It doesn't. If I had a child in the house alone with my weapon and accessible ammunition, I would use the ILS, lock the gun with the key, thus completely disabling the weapon from operation.

But then again, why was the weapon accessible in the first place? I should have locked it up in a gun safe to avoid any potential incident. Bottom line: the gun owner ultimately determines the level of safety, and there is no gun manufacturer that can supersede that with any internal or external safety they have to offer.

westernamerican wrote:Give One Good Reason Why Not If Your Answer NO WAY!

A Glock doesn't need a manual safety. By design, the Glock's ignition system doesn't have enough stored energy to ignite a round until the trigger is pulled back. A manual safety wouldn't make the pistol any safer. A chambered round is no more dangerous than one in the magazine until the trigger is pulled.

The Glock is already a safe pistol. It is a common weapon and commonly lands in the hands of un-safe people (the real issue).

The Glock is all ready built as the "safe action" pistol. If you don't want the gun to GO OFF then don't touch the trigger. Why would you want a "saftey" added?

I answered "no", and my "good reason why" is that I don't like Glocks.

I voted no. I like hammers and DA/SA and I have little use for DA only. A levered Safety is is required by me only for a carry gun.

KBCraig wrote:I answered "no", and my "good reason why" is that I don't like Glocks.

Same here.

HEMIzygote wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I answered "no", and my "good reason why" is that I don't like Glocks.

Same here.

Moi osi!

I have tried numerous Glocks, both on the regular range and in IDPA, and they just don't fit my hands very well, I'll stick with my XD for a plastic gun. (Well, I'll borrow my wife's until I buy one to replace the one she took.)

stevie_d_64 wrote:Why would I???

The integral safeties available now seem to work just fine...

I've never had a problem with it...

And the safety I have between my ears is the best one out of the four you actually do have...

And actually keeping the booger hooker out of the trigger thing helps a whole heap as well...

What Stevie said.

I prefer Glock and would never buy one with an external safety.....it is one of the many reasons I prefer the gun in the first place.

My answer is "No." Why not? Ever heard the saying "Keep it simple, stupid?"

Glocks are simple...I like simple. There's nothing in the Glock design to prevent the gun from working as designed yet, it sterilizes itself in such a manner that so long as nothing touches the "bang-switch" it will not go bang. Sounds an awful lot like nearly all revolvers. So tell me, if there's no need to put a safety on a revolver, why do I need one on a Glock?

Probably not, but not for any of the reasons listed above.

I'm a leftie. Given the Glock action, how would you install an ambidextrous safety? It'd be an interesting enough engineering problem to install a safety in the first place; adding a second lever on the other side of the gun would needlessly complicate things, and introduce One More Thing To Go Wrong.

I'd imagine it'd actually be more difficult to add an ambi safety to a Glock than to a wheelgun.

westernamerican wrote:Give One Good Reason Why Not If Your Answer NO WAY!

1. Added complexity with no added value - the guns just don't go off unless you pull the trigger, and they do go off when the trigger is pulled.

Why add something else that might go wrong?