Posted by Curious from 1Cust156.tnt1.brunswick.ga.da.uu.net on March 29, 2001 at 06:12:07:
In Reply to: Following your logic, where is the the outcry for external safties on revolvers?(nm) posted by Dr.Brody on March 28, 2001 at 23:10:27:
My only purpose in this is to stimulate awareness that, if one chooses a Glock, as so many do, then they need to be aware of the safety features it sorely lacks. I have my Colts honed to about a 5-pound trigger pull, and even though they have a grip safety in addition to a thumb safety, I'd never shove one in my waistband without the thumb safety engaged. Glocks have neither. But because you can't see the hammer cocked and unlocked (excuse me, for marketing purposes it's called a "striker"--technology that Glocks share with their fine brethren made by Raven Arms) people think it's okay to wield a Glock in the condition I just described as unsafe for a Colt. That striker is back all the time over a live round with nothing to stop it except for the ever vigilant shooter remembering to keep his finger off the trigger (which, of course, he should, but so many make mistakes).
Revolvers don't need thumb safeties since they're double-action and have much stiffer trigger pulls. Glocks can be purchased coming from the factory with 5-pound trigger pulls! That's ridiculous with no safety features. I know you can also get the "New York" trigger on one (around 12 pounds, I think) but then why would you want a semi-auto if you have to give up the sweet trigger pull because that's the only way you can make the gun safe enough for the average person to carry it?
Glocks are great shooters but they belong only in the hands of highly trained, highly disciplined shooters who are continually made aware that the gun has no effective active safety features. And even your average law enforcement officer definitely does not fit into that category.
Post a Followup: