All people seeking membership must contact admin after registering to be validated.
https://www.full-bore.co.uk/
That would be fair comment only I have owned a Glock for about a week got it at a good price. I didn't like it and changed it nothing to do with the type of safety.so they can sell them to folk who think as you do :cool2:and it is a habit/tradition formed almost a hundred years before the Glocks et al came onto the scene
I'd be prepared to take that risk over the risk of personal error - And I'll exasperate you further by saying that if I were carrying for personal defense (CC) then I wouldn't even have it with one up the spout...and again would be prepared to take that risk....Chuck wrote:Why mate? What benefit would that have for you?....If I were a soldier I'd prefer a side-arm with a safety on it.
If you were a soldier or cop or armed security and had to ditch and switch your carbine for your side arm in an encounter you would be wishing differently. Why give yourself one more thing to do in a life or death situation. Every 1/10th of a second counts and a lot of dead people have been found with safeties ON.
ordnance wrote:So the manufacturers are wrong and you know better than the people that make the firearms. Ok remove all safety catches from rifles shotguns and handguns as they are just a ( habit/tradition ) and serve no purpose and there is no need for them in your opinion.so they can sell them to folk who think as you do :cool2:
I think it depends on the handgun in question. For instance, revolvers do not tend to have a safety catch because they are deemed that bit safer due to the double action ? A Glock is, in terms of trigger pull, much nearer a revolver than a traditional SLP
The fact that Glock feels the need to point out that the firearm does not have a external safety that it can be an issue if not handled properly. And as we know people will not handle them properly human nature.
Similar systems for internal safeties have since become standard for many major manufacturers of semi-automatic pistols. However, Glock pistols, like any other firearm, can discharge and cause injury or death if the operator accidentally or negligently manipulates the trigger. ( The absence of a traditional safety switch means that Glock users who intend to carry the gun on their person with the loaded chamber must be cautious )
Not on any revolver I have shot. The trigger pull on a revolver when shooting it on D/A is a longer and heavier trigger pull than a Glock. When you pull back and release the slide on a Glock pistol you move back the striker a bit not fully. This makes for a lighter trigger pull as the striker is already near half cocked. Pull the trigger and the striker moves back fully and is released. That is why in New York they fitted a kit to make the trigger on their Glocks heaver after a number of N/D-S.A Glock is, in terms of trigger pull, much nearer a revolver than a traditional SLP
GLOCK TRIGGER SPRING
The optional GLOCK „New York“ trigger springs produce revolver-like trigger action, facilitating the acclimation from traditional revolvers to semi-automatics
- what more can one say.Good point and I will be the first to admit I never use the safety on the rifles I use for target shooting, the reason being the rifle is unloaded until I am on the firing point in position to shoot and have been give the OK to commence, from that point onwards I load my magazine or single feed the first round.Dougan wrote:And I think Ordnance makes another good point; in that if a pistol has a safety, then you can choose to use it or not.....like the main weapon: 'safety on', 'safety off'...
If that was the case Glock would never be out of court as they have no external safety that can be switched on or off. That might be one reason but do you really believe that is the only reason that safeties are fitted to firearms.Ordnance the answer is simple: so they don't get sued by people who accidentally shoot themselves - the safety is the cure all if it goes to court "it had a safety, you didn't use it"!
The SPO1 is a bit different as the safety can only be applied when the hammer is back and the firearm is ready to fire. So the only time you would be using it is if you were carrying CON 1 hammer back. Would people be happy to carry a handgun round in chamber hammer back without a safety catch applied. ?Since I acquired a CZ SP01 that has a manual safety 1911 style and I simply never use it
At the risk of falling into the Alpha 1 mode, would you mind defining Conditions 0, 1, 2 and 3? To me, a gun is unloaded, loaded or ready. I have carrried SLR (UK FN-FAL limited to semi-auto), SMG (Sterling Mk7), SLP (Browning Hi-Power), H&K G3, L96A1, SA80, L39A1 and ex-Argentinian FN-FAL on duty, lots of S1 firearms of all classes at work, and have owned semi-auto pistols and single-shot rifles, and I do not know this terminology which seems to get used quite a lot.froggy wrote:Re-
True, but safety on rifles & pistols are 2 different things . You do need a safety on a shoulder held weapons to carry it 24/24 condition 1 but not with the pistol has it is holstered hammer down condition 2.
If you carry as a primary weapon (2 hands free) condition 3 and practice de-holstering weak hand on chest you can achieve a fast & fluid de-holstering + make ready condition 0 with very little time difference from condition 2.
My P226 does not have a manual safety anyway and since I trust my kydex safariland to protect the triger guard and prevent weapon grab, so carrying in condition 2, it leaves no risk of AD, just leave me open to ND. Since I acquired a CZ SP01 that has a manual safety 1911 style and I simply never use it. On the other hand with a rifle the safety comes off only when the stock is on my shoulder .
and it is a habit/tradition formed almost a hundred years before the Glocks et al came onto the scene