Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/22/2006 11:54:45 AM EST
I'm not totally opposed to the safety if well designed, but old mags not working in it, which is probably the case, sucks.

www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=7d1f225c4d3cc5b07ef847f842091534&threadid=631448
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 12:00:27 PM EST
Damn, I guess I better pick up a G19 and a G26 quickly then.
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 12:02:16 PM EST
is it kinda like the G21SF?
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=37167

that crss bolt safety is going to SUCK; fine for rifles, but most pistols i know use a lever safety, which is the more natural and better manual safety imo

of course, glocks dont need such things....
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 12:10:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST:
is it kinda like the G21SF?
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=37167

that crss bolt safety is going to SUCK; fine for rifles, but most pistols i know use a lever safety, which is the more natural and better manual safety imo

of course, glocks dont need such things....


I guess the significance is that most thought the G21SF was a single model made for the potential .45 ACP pistol competition that got cancelled, as the only mags turning up with the notch in the front were G-21 mags. These new pics signal every model being made like this in the future. I'd like to think it's an option only, and that the current frame continues to be made as well.

Link Posted: 12/22/2006 12:17:42 PM EST
Looks like all my "old" Glocks are going to be with me forever.
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 4:30:49 PM EST
Nice!!!! Now Glocks can be carried safely!!!!! Now all then need to do if fix the KaBoom problem!!!!
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 4:40:07 PM EST
I have to imagine that someone will make a part that removes that safety...atleast I can only hope...

Looks like I'm gonna have to stick with gen 3 glocks.
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 4:40:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/22/2006 4:42:33 PM EST by ALPHAGHOST]

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST:
is it kinda like the G21SF?
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=37167

that crss bolt safety is going to SUCK; fine for rifles, but most pistols i know use a lever safety, which is the more natural and better manual safety imo

of course, glocks dont need such things....


I guess the significance is that most thought the G21SF was a single model made for the potential .45 ACP pistol competition that got cancelled, as the only mags turning up with the notch in the front were G-21 mags. These new pics signal every model being made like this in the future. I'd like to think it's an option only, and that the current frame continues to be made as well.





i hope so...why cant glock get ANYTHING (no long slide .45acp, no glock carbine, GAP (WTF??!?!), oversized big bore grips, cross safeties, unsupported chambers, finger grooves, ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!) right nowadays
Link Posted: 12/22/2006 4:45:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By SkagSig40:
Nice!!!! Now Glocks can be carried safely!!!!! Now all then need to do if fix the KaBoom problem!!!!


WOW! You're right! Glocks were sooo unsafe before. They fire if you pull the trigger... Go figure. Here's a clue: Don't pull the trigger unless you want to shoot. But you had a good point when you said, "Now all then need to do if fix the KaBoom problem." Well, now all yo need to do if fix typing problem!!!!

Link Posted: 12/22/2006 4:48:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 2:52:46 AM EST
Well I guess I'll be the lone voice of dissent here. I like it and I'm willing to give it a try. I would have liked a HK USP style safety better, but I'll with hold judgement until I am actually holding a new Glock with this safety. Who knows, Glock may not even market this design over here. Those pics are from a Dutch gun rag.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 5:59:28 AM EST
Just an observation from the peanut gallery here, as I am a Beretta guy, I don't own a Glock. I have family and friends with them, and have shot them a lot, so I am familiar with them.

Anyhow, my observation is I don't see the big deal. If they still have the tried and true trigger "safety", and they just added another safety, and you don't like it, don't use it. My Remington rifles all have the silly j-pin safety dealie, and I have never used any of them.

My opinion changes if this new cross-bolt safety design is automatically engaged on loading a new mag, or you need to engage it to remove a mag or something silly like that. But if all it does is add another safety, and it keeps them from being sued, and maybe gets new people to buy them that have avoided them in the past, I only see this as being a positive move for them.

Link Posted: 12/23/2006 6:14:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Faustina:
Just an observation from the peanut gallery here, as I am a Beretta guy, I don't own a Glock. I have family and friends with them, and have shot them a lot, so I am familiar with them.

Anyhow, my observation is I don't see the big deal. If they still have the tried and true trigger "safety", and they just added another safety, and you don't like it, don't use it. My Remington rifles all have the silly j-pin safety dealie, and I have never used any of them.

My opinion changes if this new cross-bolt safety design is automatically engaged on loading a new mag, or you need to engage it to remove a mag or something silly like that. But if all it does is add another safety, and it keeps them from being sued, and maybe gets new people to buy them that have avoided them in the past, I only see this as being a positive move for them.




That's the first thing new pistol buyers point out is no manual safety. When a newbie and unsure about yourself it's a plus. Of course we all know and I tell them the real safety is between your ears.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 6:38:35 AM EST
As another non-Glock owning Peanut Gallery Observer™, that stupid safety will get in the way if your left handed, unless it's also reversible like the mag catch.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 6:56:25 AM EST
Lets hope this does not come into fruition.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 8:26:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/23/2006 8:26:21 AM EST by Chris_1522]
I can live with the safety if they give me a 100% preloaded striker and thus a crisp single action trigger pull.



Link Posted: 12/23/2006 9:00:36 AM EST
Shitty
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 9:25:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/23/2006 9:26:42 AM EST by GunsRcool]

Originally Posted By BulletBait:
As another non-Glock owning Peanut Gallery Observer™, that stupid safety will get in the way if your left handed, unless it's also reversible like the mag catch.


Yeah that safety looks like it is in a poor spot. Are they going to equip all their guns with the safety or is it just for some types? Glock has made guns with lever safetys in the past, I think it would be better if they went with that type. Anyway I think they are messing with a good thing. If they went to this type of pistol, I probably would not buy it.

I bet if they mandate that safety on all their new pistols that they loose a lot of LE market share to SIG with their DAK system. A lot of the LE officers I have talked with like their glocks for the specific fact that it has no manual safety.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 12:16:28 PM EST
As long as that is another model of the G19 out there, i'm ok with it. If that's going to be on all Glocks i'll be pissed.

I do have a friend who shoots Glocks but won't carry one CCW. He said if Glock had weapons with safeties he'd carry one for sure.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 12:36:29 PM EST
Good thing I own a Springfield XD .45 he
I ended up getting the XD over the Glock because of the loaded chamber indicator, cocked striker indicator, ambi mag release (Im a lefty), and I think grip safeties are cool. Oh yeah and the comfy grip.
Oh yeah, and XD's do not explode. And also theres no need to keep up with what serial number you've got in order to be sure your current with the most up to date Glock "product parts upgrade" pack. So much for perfection!
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 12:38:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST:
is it kinda like the G21SF?
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=37167

that crss bolt safety is going to SUCK; fine for rifles, but most pistols i know use a lever safety, which is the more natural and better manual safety imo

of course, glocks dont need such things....


I guess the significance is that most thought the G21SF was a single model made for the potential .45 ACP pistol competition that got cancelled, as the only mags turning up with the notch in the front were G-21 mags. These new pics signal every model being made like this in the future. I'd like to think it's an option only, and that the current frame continues to be made as well.



Seems unlikely, particularly if the magazines do not interchange. Glock is not going to manufacture two different types of magazines and frames.

Cross bolt? wow



That would be my guess as well. It's probably just a "concept" pistol. I think they'd be alienating their market too much if they forced this on them and thus made obsolete all the other frames and, most importantly, mags.

Either way, I was planning on buying a spare G19 in the coming year and this kind of reinforces that.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 2:18:40 PM EST
On the bright side, it reduces the learning curve if you're coming from a Red Ryder BB gun.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 2:21:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Thorgrim:
Good thing I own a Springfield XD .45

I guess the whole "reason" (for me anyway) to have bought a Glock is shot to shit then: the lack of a manual safety, IE, revolver-ness in a hi-cap semi auto.

I ended up getting the XD over the Glock because of the loaded chamber indicator, cocked striker indicator, ambi mag release (Im a lefty), and I think grip safeties are cool. Oh yeah and the comfy grip.
Oh yeah, and XD's do not explode. And also theres no need to keep up with what serial number you've got in order to be sure your current with the most up to date Glock "product parts upgrade" pack.
So much for perfection!


You might want to wait until the XD gets some time and use under it's belt before you talk smack.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 3:35:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:
On the bright side, it reduces the learning curve if you're coming from a Red Ryder BB gun.


Link Posted: 12/23/2006 3:44:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 3:58:51 PM EST
My glock 23 is my edc pistol. I decided to use that one over any other pistol was for its simplicity and clean appearance. I think it would be a great injustice to add that to their pistol. Just my .02.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 3:59:17 PM EST
I've dumped my Glocks in favor of the S&W M&P and been much happier since. Safety or not Glock's grip angle and grooves suck.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 5:20:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Thorgrim:
Good thing I own a Springfield XD .45

I guess the whole "reason" (for me anyway) to have bought a Glock is shot to shit then: the lack of a manual safety, IE, revolver-ness in a hi-cap semi auto.

I ended up getting the XD over the Glock because of the loaded chamber indicator, cocked striker indicator, ambi mag release (Im a lefty), and I think grip safeties are cool. Oh yeah and the comfy grip.
Oh yeah, and XD's do not explode. And also theres no need to keep up with what serial number you've got in order to be sure your current with the most up to date Glock "product parts upgrade" pack.
So much for perfection!


That's one of the god things about Glock, sport. Always improving.
Also, how long has the HS/XD line actually been on the market? Maybe a year in .45?
Bet you'll see some "improvements" with it too.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 6:58:30 PM EST
Wow - a Glock with a cross-bolt safety. That sucks. They're going to run themselves out of the defesive pistol market with that one.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 7:19:40 PM EST
One word............... POOP
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 7:40:23 PM EST
Wow the one thing they could have done that would have been an improvement, interchangeable palm swells or whatever, they didn't do. WTF?

These "improvements" are not improvements. I'll keep my Gen 3's.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 8:20:45 PM EST
Only an idiot would insist on a manual safety for a Glock.

What's next? S&W DA revolvers w/ manual safeties?
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 8:28:39 PM EST
they've forgotten the carbine or better yet the compact .45acp for this travsity
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 9:24:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/23/2006 9:27:37 PM EST by BulletBait]

Originally Posted By CBR900:
Only an idiot would insist on a manual safety for a Glock.

What's next? S&W DA revolvers w/ manual safeties?

Sadly some S&W and Colt wheel guns were fitted with safeties to make a few idiot police chiefs happy.

Never underestimate the stupidity of a bureaucrat.

ETA: The more I look at this, the more I doubt it's the Gen-4.
It was probably made to comply with some foolish .GOV contract.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 9:32:19 PM EST
I would much rather see the next generation of Glocks with fully supported chambers rather than a cheesey safety and an ambi release.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 9:37:36 PM EST
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 10:03:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 10:44:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By I_Spit_On_Hippies:

Originally Posted By SkagSig40:
Nice!!!! Now Glocks can be carried safely!!!!! Now all then need to do if fix the KaBoom problem!!!!


WOW! You're right! Glocks were sooo unsafe before. They fire if you pull the trigger... Go figure. Here's a clue: Don't pull the trigger unless you want to shoot. But you had a good point when you said, "Now all then need to do if fix the KaBoom problem." Well, now all yo need to do if fix typing problem!!!!



From an institutional perspective they WERE unsafe. PERIOD.

Remember: safeties do not exist to prevent mechanical failure - they exist to prevent unwanted mechanical operation.

The POINT of a safety is that something or someone just MAY contact the trigger at a time other than when the gun is supposed to fire.

At that point, all the arguing about 'THE RULES' is pointless, as the gun will either fire (no safety/safety-on-trigger/safety off) or not fire (effective safety on).

While Glock did a great job of ensuring their gun will never fire due to being dropped, used as a hammer, or punched nose-first down onto a table, they did NOTHING to ensure that it would not fire if someone 'slipped' and pulled the trigger, or if the gun snagged on a holster, or some foreign object...

Safeties are 'idiot switches', and from an institutional perspective, they are vital - the difference between an 'Oh Shit, that was dumb' and someone getting shot/killed...

Link Posted: 12/23/2006 10:47:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By SPDSNYPR:
Wow - a Glock with a cross-bolt safety. That sucks. They're going to run themselves out of the defesive pistol market with that one.


They are trying to be competative for military customers (like the US military) that require a manual safety...

The problem with that one is that it will be too easy to try and take the gun off safe, but drop the mag instead...

Safeties and mag releases should be clearly separated (ala M1911 & HK USP, 92FS/M9/PPK, AR15, etc)....
Link Posted: 12/23/2006 11:03:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/23/2006 11:04:45 PM EST by VTwin60]

Originally Posted By bigkracka:
I've dumped my Glocks in favor of the S&W M&P and been much happier since. Safety or not Glock's grip angle and grooves suck.


Going to do the exact same come February hopefully. A new M&P .45 will be a great B-day gift to myself. I'll still keep my G17, but I"ll switch to the M&P as my duty weapon of choice.
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 1:10:45 AM EST
It's a frickin' Festivus miracle.

Link Posted: 12/24/2006 11:59:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By bigkracka:
I've dumped my Glocks in favor of the S&W M&P and been much happier since. Safety or not Glock's grip angle and grooves suck.


Yeah, I looked at a G19 the other day, but had to diqualify it pretty quickly. I couldn't get the blinking thing to sit comfortably in my hand. I'm not going to carry something that could potentially distract me when I don't need distracted.

I'm going to let the M&P get some more experiance under its belt before I seriously look at one. I've never bee too hot on S&W autos and the Sigma seems to have left a VERY bad taste in a lot of prople's mouth. The M&P looks a LOT better so far, though.
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 1:02:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By tep0583:
I'm going to let the M&P get some more experiance under its belt before I seriously look at one. I've never bee too hot on S&W autos and the Sigma seems to have left a VERY bad taste in a lot of prople's mouth. The M&P looks a LOT better so far, though.


You're comparing two completely different models designed for two different things. Sigma's were a cheap POS Glock knock off. The M&P does not share a single component with the Sigma.
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 1:33:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By VTwin60:

Originally Posted By tep0583:
I'm going to let the M&P get some more experiance under its belt before I seriously look at one. I've never bee too hot on S&W autos and the Sigma seems to have left a VERY bad taste in a lot of prople's mouth. The M&P looks a LOT better so far, though.


You're comparing two completely different models designed for two different things. Sigma's were a cheap POS Glock knock off. The M&P does not share a single component with the Sigma.


The Sigma was just one example. As I said, I've never personally been much for S&W autos. They never made it that far up my "must have" list. I'm fully aware that the Sigma and the M&P are completely different psitols. When the Sigma first came out, however, I heard a lot of semingly positive buzz about them. I'm not jumping into an M&P until 1) More time goes by. 2) I see a significant reason I "need" one. Right at the moment I'm setting pretty good with handguns that I can carry that will do the job at least as good as an M&P.

I like the interchangable grips, but that's not enough to get me to buy one in itself.

Link Posted: 12/24/2006 1:43:29 PM EST
not sure i like that...............
Link Posted: 12/24/2006 5:20:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/24/2006 5:21:33 PM EST by BulletBait]
Just finished my last minuet Christmas shopping, while at Barnes & Noble I read the article in Soldier of Fortune Phooey about the new .MIL glock called the GSF45.

They also claim that it has a cross-bolt safety, YMMV.
Link Posted: 12/25/2006 10:37:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Faustieah:
Anyhow, my observation is I don't see the big deal. If they still have the tried and true trigger "safety", and they just added another safety, and you don't like it, don't use it. My Remington rifles all have the silly j-pin safety dealie, and I have never used any of them.

Here's the big deal... Glock seems to be hell bent on ruining what they've spent years building up. For years Glock enthusiast having been begging for new models and changes like getting rid of the finger grooves, improving the grip, single stack models of the 19/23 and 26/27. Long slide versions of the 20/21, a Glock carbine, etc... The list can go on but what do they give us after all these years? A friggen safety!!! The one thing that almost nobody, who knows anything about these firearms wanted!

When the talk about the G21SF started, I hoped it would just be another option but now I'm thinking this will be an across the board change. I just don't see them keeping both options. If this turns out to be the case, it will make at least two companies very happy, Springfield and S&W. The XD and M&P are already sold competition for Glock and if Glock does this very stupid move, I think both of them will pick up a lot of new customers.

BTW - Did you look at the pictures? This safety is nothing like the Remington J-lock. While equally stupid, the Remington safety does not get in the way of your grip nor is it possible to possibly engage it.

Just my opinion but this is a huge mistake on Glock's part if they go through with it.
Link Posted: 12/25/2006 10:38:11 AM EST
Why can't they just get it right?

The 1911 has been around almost 100 freaking years. If you can't do any better, don't try to reinvent the wheel.

Either put it in the right place or just keep with the passive safeties.
Link Posted: 12/25/2006 12:08:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/26/2006 9:31:04 AM EST
After thinking about this for a day, I don't hate it.

I want a 5" .40 HD gun, and I think a model 35 with this safety and a surefire would fit that role nicely.

I hope they do it as an option. Police who carry with a large external holster don't need safeties, but I want one.

So I'll watch this.
Link Posted: 12/26/2006 9:53:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2006 9:54:59 AM EST by Faustieah]

Originally Posted By cgv69:
BTW - Did you look at the pictures? This safety is nothing like the Remington J-lock. While equally stupid, the Remington safety does not get in the way of your grip nor is it possible to possibly engage it.


Yeah, I looked at the pictures. I was working on the assumption that the picture was of an early protype, and the end product would not necessarily have the safety as the picture shown.

My opinion was more directed towards the idea of Glock implementing a safety, since that was the direction the debate here was headed, rather than the actual design, or lack thereof of the pictured safety.

Having said that, I agree you that if the safety they eventually go with is as shown, that is of a poor design. That was why I brought up the Remington j-safety, because that one is done well, in that if you don't want to use it, you don't have to, and it doesn't affect function at all. My main point being if Glock designs one along those lines, I didn't see the big deal. I likely wasn't too clear on this initially.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top