[ARCHIVED THREAD] - JB Weld Trigger safety (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:19:24 PM EDT
|
I JB Welded my trigger safety and sanded down the blade that was sticking in front of the trigger. I now have a smooth trigger without the blade. Can anyone prove that this is unsafe? All the blade seems to do is keep the trigger from moving back when the slide is pulled back. How is it less safe than any other DA handgun?
Thanks! http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk245/Criag_GCC/Toys/IMG_5226.jpg |
|
If you are ever possibly going to use gun this in a self defense situation, the attorney in the wrongful death civil suit is going to have a field day with you for bypassing a trigger safety and show that you were looking to kill someone because why else would you use cop killer bullets and disconnect a safety feature of the murder weapon.
I'm not a lawyer but I do watch a lot of Judge Judy on TV. |
| What do you guys think the trigger safety is really doing? The Glock has a firing pin safety and the trigger bar safety. The trigger safety is just cosmetic. It keeps the trigger from going back when you pull the slide back, thats it! Can someone tell me what else the trigger safety does. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone tell me what else the trigger safety does. It prevents inertia from activating the trigger if the weapon is dropped on its rear. next to impossible. i cannot believe some of the responses here. you people would probably have the same reaction to an eliminated 1911 grip safety, huh? 
|
|
Quoted: The Glock originally failed the DEA "Frisbee" drop test because the next to impossible. i cannot believe some of the responses here. trigger safety spring was too light. Glock strengthened the spring, it then passed and the model 22 is now standard issue. A Glock will fire if dropped on its rear from sufficient height without its trigger safety. That's its reason for existing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can someone tell me what else the trigger safety does. It prevents inertia from activating the trigger if the weapon is dropped on its rear. This is what I have always believed. And IMHO not a good idea to dick with it.If you hate the trigger that much buy a different pistol. Luckily ,trigger bar assemblies are cheap so you can easily unfuck it. |
| I guess if you are careful it isnt that much less safe, but it seems pretty unnecessary. You can disable the damn thing by just pulling the trigger. I don't even notice it. It does offer a small additional level of safety, that can be achieved by being vary careful and deliberate with your pistol, as you should be anyway, but again, with it being designed to go rather unnoticed, and disabled by pulling the trigger, your actions seem without purpose, and as if you're asking for trouble. |
|
Quoted: Go to the range and play with your little mod. Then order the part to fix it. I would not leave it this way. It is there for a reason. If it was a bad idea to have it there, Glock would have dropped the feature a few million produced guns ago. Just make sure nobody else is around if you plan on re-holstering... |
|
I could see altering safeties with a competition gun. Many 1911 pattern guns in USPSA/IPSC have the grip safeties pinned, but I wouldn't alter any safeties on a carry gun. No reason to give Larry the lawyer and a jury something to contemplate since the trigger safety on a Glock is nothing to overcome when shooting the pistol anyway.
NAD |
|
Quoted:
What do you guys think the trigger safety is really doing? The Glock has a firing pin safety and the trigger bar safety. The trigger safety is just cosmetic. It keeps the trigger from going back when you pull the slide back, thats it! Can someone tell me what else the trigger safety does. It keeps the trigger from moving back until your finger is in there to deactivate it. And yes, just about anything else that happens to be long enough like a key, pen, or something else in a pocket someone stuck their gun into without a holster. If something catches the edge of the trigger while reholstering, it won't fire. If it falls from a high enough distance on the rear, it won't fire. |
|
Quoted:
I JB Welded my trigger safety and sanded down the blade that was sticking in front of the trigger. I now have a smooth trigger without the blade. Can anyone prove that this is unsafe? All the blade seems to do is keep the trigger from moving back when the slide is pulled back. How is it less safe than any other DA handgun? Thanks! What the hell does this accomplish? I have changed some stuff on my GLOCKs, but have NEVER thought "man this trigger safety is a bitch,I need to get rid of it." Seriously what does it do for you? |
| It isn't just cosmetic. Yes it prevents the trigger from going back when you rack the slide, and yes that is cosmetic.... but it is ALSO a safety issue. You can do the same thing by holding the trigger in after you pull/shoot. From that point you can fire with a really short/soft trigger pull. Lets say you racked the slide and the trigger went back and stayed there, now you are very close to firing, and have no way to "decock". Now handling the pistol, holstering the pistol, etc., becomes less safe because there is no manual safety to fall back on. I suppose you can make the argument that this wouldn't happen, but as you rack the pistol the trigger will still be pulled back, and for that moment, would you not also be in danger of accidentally pulling the trigger because it wouldn't take much to do it? Again, no manual safety in place to prevent it. Also, this trigger is beneficial for holstering and ADs associated with that. |
|
OK so the best answer is that if I drop the gun, from some distance, the trigger could go all the way back and fire. Seems very unlikely. Smacking the back of the gun very hard does not cause the trigger to move at all. If something catches the edge of the trigger it will be not fire. Well my Ruger LCP does not have a trigger safety and it also has a trigger pull around 5lbs. I carry my LCP in my pocket everyday, in a pocket holster, like lots of other people. Yep, if you keep junk in your pocket with your concealed carry gun something can get in the trigger guard and make the gun fire, with or without a trigger safety. I don't know why you guys think the trigger safety is so important on a Glock.
http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk245/Criag_GCC/Toys/IMG_5226.jpg |
|
Jesus, some gun people and their passive aggressive pent up rage.........Some of the responses here make me question my unfailing support of the Second Amendment.
The trigger safety does annoy me on my Glocks, but that is because despite the tens of thousands of rounds that I have fired through Glocks over the last 10 years or so, I have shot tens of thousands more rounds through 1911s and Browning HiPowers over the last 20 years. That said, it does not annoy me to the point of removing it, though I do replace the serrated triggers on my compacts with the smooth triggers from the full-size guns. If I competed with Glocks I would probably remove the trigger safety. Diligence is required regardless of the safety configuration on any gun. If all of the rules of gun safety are observed, it would be moot anyway. Relying on something as cheesy as the Glock trigger safety is about as foolish as removing it. I would be interested to see what kind of G-loading would be required to move a Glock trigger far enough for the pistol to discharge. I bet that it is higher than the gun is capable of attaining through gravity alone. As for the idea that a modified gun can cause someone extra civil or legal trouble, has anyone ever pointed to a case where that has been the case.....ever? At any rate, a lot of us, myself included, are fortunate enough to live in states that have laws to shield us from civil action stemming from a legitimate self defense shooting. As long as the circumstances that lead to the shooting meant that shooting was a reasonable and prudent thing for someone in legitimate fear for their life or grave bodily injury, it would not matter if one used a highly tuned race gun, an M16, or their great grand daddy's damascus barreled shotgun, in the great state of Oklahoma. Just don't drive with your fog lights on or it takes two cops in a near felony stop. 
Rob |
|
Quoted:
As for the idea that a modified gun can cause someone extra civil or legal trouble, has anyone ever pointed to a case where that has been the case.....ever?
Rob Why give opposing council a back door to accuse you of being unsafe for rendering the safety of a devise inoperable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for the idea that a modified gun can cause someone extra civil or legal trouble, has anyone ever pointed to a case where that has been the case.....ever?
Rob Why give opposing council a back door to accuse you of being unsafe for rendering the safety of a devise inoperable. Maybe things are different here in the south (Oklahoma,) but most people realize that it takes more than the trigger safety on a Glock to kill someone. It takes either total negligence or a concerted effort. If the plaintiff's attorney has to pin the blame on the very slightly modified trigger on a gun that was drawn, aimed, and fired at their client or whomever, they are grasping at straws and anyone with common sense will see that. Again, at least in this part of the world, if I were legitimately in fear for my life and all I had to defend myself was a chainsaw, even if I looked like a deranged psychopath, I would be in the clear if it was ruled justifiable. The only time I can see modifying a trigger causing legal grief is if you accidentally shot someone. Having a bone stock gun is not going to absolve you of that civil and criminal liability. From a liability standpoint modifying a Glock trigger would not be significantly different than having a benchrest rifle with a 0.5 pound trigger. Both have been modified from the manufacturers intended specs and both are equally dangerous from a liability standpoint. Rob |
|
Quoted:
Would you run around in condition 1 with a 1911 with the grip safety and thumb safety deactivated? If not, well, you just did the same thing with your Glock. You probably cock your revolvers to SA mode and leave them that way also, right? I am with Jeff Cooper and believe the grip safety on a 1911 is superfluous. It should be pinned down. There are times you do not have a good grip on the handgun and the grip safety can get you killed. I also do not believe the 1980 style firing pin safety is needed on the 1911. John Browning put on a grip safety only after the military's request. I had a Colt stainless steel Combat Commander. It was a 1980 series and I hated the firing pin safety and removed it. I did not get around to pinning the grip safety. I carried my Colt cocked and locked with a round in the chamber. I traded it for a Glock 22 when they first came on the market in 1990. Thank you for your concern for my safety and those around me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for the idea that a modified gun can cause someone extra civil or legal trouble, has anyone ever pointed to a case where that has been the case.....ever?
Rob Why give opposing council a back door to accuse you of being unsafe for rendering the safety of a devise inoperable. Maybe things are different here in the south (Oklahoma,) but most people realize that it takes more than the trigger safety on a Glock to kill someone. It takes either total negligence or a concerted effort. If the plaintiff's attorney has to pin the blame on the very slightly modified trigger on a gun that was drawn, aimed, and fired at their client or whomever, they are grasping at straws and anyone with common sense will see that. Again, at least in this part of the world, if I were legitimately in fear for my life and all I had to defend myself was a chainsaw, even if I looked like a deranged psychopath, I would be in the clear if it was ruled justifiable. The only time I can see modifying a trigger causing legal grief is if you accidentally shot someone. Having a bone stock gun is not going to absolve you of that civil and criminal liability. From a liability standpoint modifying a Glock trigger would not be significantly different than having a benchrest rifle with a 0.5 pound trigger. Both have been modified from the manufacturers intended specs and both are equally dangerous from a liability standpoint. Rob I would say your statements are correct. Juries, made up of men and women, are living, breathing, emotional beings with their own values and thought processes. I, myself, would not want to give them this opening to think about. Your counsel can refute or explain away certain aspects regarding the reason why you disabled a safety devise the manufacturer of that product thought was necessary for its proper functioning. The result here is that A Safety Devise was removed from the firearm. Now you have introduced doubt into the jury pool about your intentions. Sure, a fully justified self defense shoot with a firearm that had a safety mechanism disabled. Not something I want to gamble on. Just my way of thinking, that's all. |
|
Combat Handguns June 2010 Page 8
"Self Defense and the Law: Controversial Mag Disconnector-Deactivating this safety devise can land you in jail-Four real life cases make the point" Article about deactivation of safety devises on firearms and its ramifications. Unfortunately I cannot cut and paste the article here for you to read. |
| Honestly don’t know what to say besides before doing it, it might have been wise to get some input....... all I can say is that SCREAMS bad ju ju and as a Glock Armorer I would highly recommend that you take it to an Armorer in your area and get the proper part installed back in the gun. The trigger safety is designed to keep the trigger from being accidentally depressed in case of it being bumped while holstering or handling. Everything aside me, personally, wouldn’t touch that gun. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
John Browning put on a grip safety only after the military's request. The military requested a thumb lock. It appears we may both be correct. Wiki says that "The military mandated a grip safety and a manual safety.[1]" John Browning created a model with the grip safety first and later the thumb safety. |
|
yes.... but a benchrest rifle is only going to be used at the range or perhaps varmaint hunting, you arent going to be toting it around loaded when you go to the grocery store are you......
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for the idea that a modified gun can cause someone extra civil or legal trouble, has anyone ever pointed to a case where that has been the case.....ever?
Rob Why give opposing council a back door to accuse you of being unsafe for rendering the safety of a devise inoperable. Maybe things are different here in the south (Oklahoma,) but most people realize that it takes more than the trigger safety on a Glock to kill someone. It takes either total negligence or a concerted effort. If the plaintiff's attorney has to pin the blame on the very slightly modified trigger on a gun that was drawn, aimed, and fired at their client or whomever, they are grasping at straws and anyone with common sense will see that. Again, at least in this part of the world, if I were legitimately in fear for my life and all I had to defend myself was a chainsaw, even if I looked like a deranged psychopath, I would be in the clear if it was ruled justifiable. The only time I can see modifying a trigger causing legal grief is if you accidentally shot someone. Having a bone stock gun is not going to absolve you of that civil and criminal liability. From a liability standpoint modifying a Glock trigger would not be significantly different than having a benchrest rifle with a 0.5 pound trigger. Both have been modified from the manufacturers intended specs and both are equally dangerous from a liability standpoint. Rob |
| I just contour the trigger safeties so they lay flush with the trigger face when depressed. If you look, the trigger face is curved and the trigger safety is straight. A little work with a knife and sandpaper fixes the feel nicely but doesn't alter function... |
|
Craig,
nice job on that. A few guys at my Club have modded their triggers in a similar fashion, and re-contoured for a shorter trigger reach. The ones I've seen are "pinned" with a very small roll pin, but handling was improved in my opinion. As far as the trigger creating inertia for a ND when dropped- no way. It really amazes me all the internet experts and their responses. |