I was a beta tester for years before the release, couldn't break the things.  I have zero financial nor business interest in the company nor the device.  I did write this article about it, though.  Anyone in the NoVA area is welcome to check out my SCD equipped Glocks at Elite Shooing Sports.

I installed it in my 19 w/Ghost connector.

Haven't been to the range though.

I don't use aftermarket triggers myself but from the company:

Why not just buy a gun with a safety?

This is the Glock forum.

I've got one on a Gen 2 G17, I'll be putting them on all my Glocks over time. I haven't run it hard yet but I'm taking some FPF courses this weekend as a refresher before ECQC in April. I'm currently running it with a Dark Star Gear AIWB holster (the Ballistic Radio / Rampage for the TLG model).

After using it I wouldn't want to carry a striker fired handgun without a safety or SCD equivalent (like the PPS).

I want a Gen2 G17

You making the ToddG Memorial?

I haven't committed to it yet as I didn't really know Todd and joined PF after he passed. Maybe I'll come on out anyway, it would be nice to put faces with screen names.

I bought a new 19-4 in late December '16, and a SCD/Gadget to go with it.

I have an Overwatch Precision DAT V2 trigger. The SCD/Gadget protrudes ever so barely slightly from the frame. I perceive no diminishment in functionality of the SCD with the use of this particular aftermarket trigger in my gun. I particularly enjoy the increased safety while holstering.

I'm a fan, and plan to get a SCD/Gadget every time I acquire a Glock.

I've really thought about getting one. It seems well vetted and IF it somehow did break anyway the pistol will still work. I don't really see a downside other than the cost to buy.

Why would you carry a gun with a "mechanical problem"?

interesting.....might order some to see if I can convert my Dad

The problem isn't "mechanical" it is shooter error. The SCD allows an extra margin of safety in case your shirt gets untucked or a drawstring from your jacket gets in the trigger guard during reholstering.

There isn't one and I didn't say there was.

So in numbers since this is tech forum how many ND type incidents will this cure? 

I have one.  Will be getting a few more...

87,000.

Innumerable.

I bought two, currently have one on my Grey Gen4 G19, the other will probably end up on my normal CCW Gen3 G19 at some point... I've been carrying the Grey lately. My next step is a try out a genuine AIWB holster from a quality maker, and see if I can manage a Glock in that position as well as I have been managing the 442 J-frame there. Even for my normal IWB, I feel it does give a slightly safer re-holster ( having caught shirt tails, jackets/vests etc in a holster before).

I bought into this clear back in 2015 IIRC, so it's nice to see it come to fruition. It's a shame Todd didn't get to see the final product, but Tom has seen it through, and I hope it is a successful venture. I never got a chance to take a class from Todd, but I've read his blog and followed P-F stuff forever...

I lurk P-F, but don't post... I should change that. Lots of tuned in folks there...

I shown different numbers for LEO who have the ability to do root cause investigations.

So you have definitive statistical data on how many NDs the SCD would prevent.  By all means, share it!

I'd have to find the episode but on one of Daniel Shaw's podcasts, I assume there is a Youtube video for it, he talks to a trainer who recently had a student ND in his leg due to a jacket drawstring. That is exactly the sort of thing a SCD can help prevent.

Edit to add it was Gunfighter Cast episode 124 with Trek (Erik Utrecht) at the 7 minute mark.

Excellent, thank you.

I didn't relisten to the recording but the full story may be later in the podcast.

I'm going to check it out tomorrow while at work, hopefully I remember to update this thread with my finding.

Looks like a good idea to me. I place my thumb on the cover plate when I holster a Glock anyway.

You started this thread and I would bet you researched it and found cases where you can prove a ND would be eliminated 87000 times.  Or not?

What effect does this have on trigger pull? It seems since the striker has to overcome the pressure from inner piece on the "gadget" it would add to the trigger weight.

I cannot perceive a difference in pull. The part is not spring loaded...gravity is all that holds it down/in. I am sure it could add some small amount of friction to the trigger pull, but I would guess one would be hard pressed to measure it without lab grade gear.

For god's sake, get your sarcasm meter checked ASAP.

None.

Seems like a good idea, I'll probably pick one up if/when they come out for the 43.

Supposedly that model and the P320 model are being worked on.

Tostart with I wish this not to be interpreted as a attach against
Jefflebowski.

Iwish to outline how this device will not stop so much as a single
Negligent Discharge/Unintentional Discharge.

Thisdevice can do nothing with out the user.Itmust be trained on to work properly and is ineffective without common
sense and firearms training.
Inthe following report of the 13 cases of  Unintentional Discharges 9
where complete and found Officers to “haveviolated Department guide-lines and was subject to discipline and/or
retraining.”
Notone of the nine say anything about an issue with the firearm. More
over the lack of a additional safety on the Glock is not mentioned.



Pleaseread this report for yourself and check it against what I have write.
PDF pages 63-67, printed page numbers are 45-48.
Wecould use any report that we can get that investigates Unintentional
Discharges and give us ROOT CAUSE.
Source:http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf
NewYork City Police Department Annual Firearms Discharge Report.


NewYork sees 15 Unintentional Discharges in 2011.
13Purely Unintentional
2During Adversarial ConflictWewill not deal with the 2 during conflict and start working the 13
that are Purely Unintentional.
Inthese 13 Unintentional Discharges single shots are fired while
officers are in control of the firearm.6of these are while the Officers are loading and unloading the weapon.7of these are while the Officers are holstering or handling the
firearm.

ACCORDINGTO THE REPORT GLOCKS ARE 75% OF THE FIREARMS INVOLVED.
Thatsounds like a huge number but if they employ 35,000 officers it is
about.04%.This is not being trivialized by me it should always be zero.Source:https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/glock-trigger/ I rounded it up.
Thatmeans 99.96% of Officers operate without issue.

Where do you go about getting one?

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gadget-a-striker-control-device#/

I got one when they first started their fund-me.  It's installed on my G19 Gen4.
It works very well and is a quality build.  It definitely prevents trigger pull when even lightly pressed.
But it's $80 fraking dollars for two small pieces of aluminum and a roll pin.  I just don't see that many being sold.  Maybe it would go well at $40 or so.

TYCOM

TTT

Machined steel.  Machined in America.

I'm really confused by this post and what you're trying to show.  It certainly doesn't provide any evidence for the claim you're making, that this device won't ever stop an unintentional discharge.  If there's ever a situation where something gets caught in the trigger guard upon reholstering, and you have a thumb on this device, it will prevent the discharge as well as having a thumb on the hammer of a hammer fired handgun would.  That's not to say it will always prevent it, but it won't do any worse than not having anything there.  The fact that the root cause was found to be training isn't surprising, that's the "catch all" for reasons for failure in reports.  Engineering fixes are almost always preferable to purely training fixes, especially when they take nothing away from a design.  

As for the .04%, you're right in that that's the chance per year.  Assuming a 30 year career, that means the "average" (statistically) cop has a 1.2% chance of having an unintentional discharge at some point in their career.  Still small, but not quite as miniscule.  The report you linked states that over half of the unintentional discharges were during handling, and specifically calls out holstering.  It doesn't say how the holstering caused the discharge, so it doesn't seem to provide any evidence that this tool would not have worked.  

The only argument I can really get behind for this is it not being a factory stock product.  I suppose you could also argue that if it works some regulation happy states will use them to add stupid requirements in their laws (that one is somewhat of a concern, and is similar to biometric safety issues).  Every other argument against it seems to be an equal argument against thumbing the hammer on a hammer fired gun.  No, it will not make up for poor training.  No, it will not stop every ND.  No, it is not a substitute for being careful and paying attention.  Most of the arguments I saw when looking around the net about it are trying to bring up ways it can fail.  Of course it's not going to completely stop NDs from happening, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the claim it made.  

I think the idea is you don't lose anything by having it.  Any situation where this thing doesn't stop an ND, is a situation where you'd have an ND without it too.  It helps stop one particular type of ND from happening if you use it properly, and that seems to be the goal.  If you're holstering the gun and something catches on the trigger, it is an indicator to let you know something is snagged and you need to fix the situation.  Will you be fine without it?  Yeah most likely, the same way you'd be fine without thumbing your hammer down in your DA/SA weapons.  That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

The point is I alone can stop nd/ad. No add on will do it. Sure if you train with it yes but you could of train without it and get the same results. 

No safety device can prevent a ND when user negligence is the cause (which is nearly 100% of the time on modern firearms). If the user were to train with this device and build muscle memory to "thumb the slide plate" on holstering as an additional layer of safety, why do you have such a beef with it? Sounds like you're a Glock purest and don't like the notion of having an additional safety behind keeping your booger picker off of the bang switch. If the gadget proves to be reliable in of itself and does not negate any of the internal safeties and overall reliability of the weapon then what's the hurt? If it knocks off all of the reliability requirements, it doesn't seem any different to me than adding a pair of after market sights to the weapon. For folks who prefer the appendix position this is a fantastic addition for their personal safety. Just because on the square range you make sure your holster is clear of obstructions doesn't mean that in real-life under real-life stress that you would do the same. No point in putting down a perp and then putting down yourself because you're a purest.  

Finally, this is 'merica, if you want to add something to your gun, add it. Freedom and such.

You had me MERICA. It is clear I pray to different Idols.

You've said your piece, now why don't you go troll some other thread?

Still waiting for proof this this stops so much as one ND/AD.

Please explain how you've trained yourself to be aware that the striker is moving rearward without any visual, tactile, or audible indicators.



If you're unable to understand how being aware that the striker is moving rearward as you're reholstering could alert you to the possibility of an imminent accidental discharge I don't know it can be explained to you. It doesn't prevent anything, it just gives the user information he wouldn't otherwise get. On a DA/SA reholstering with your thumb on the hammer is a common technique used because you'll get the same feedback. If the hammer moves you need to stop and find out why. If your striker starts traveling rearward you should stop and find out why.

There's not one person here saying that this will magically prevent an AD/ND, that's just retarded. It's a way to get information you'd not otherwise get. That's it. No more, no less. There's no way to get some scientific number on the Total Discharge Prevention Factor or whatever you're wanting.

Can you provide solid proof that this would not have stopped every single Glock reholstering incident ever recorded?

99.96% of Officers operate without issue, so unless they are in the nude minus a holster and a pistol they prove it is possible without the device.

Everyone says that until they have the gun go off when they didn't mean it to.  If you use the gadget and a something gets caught in the trigger guard when you are re-holstering the gun it will not go off.  Yes training will help but most people also assume they will never have a ND; until it happens. You are arguing against a safety device because you believe you are above it.   If it prevents even one ND then it is worth it, without question.

If I fail to train I train to fail.

I am sure this is was wrote to induce terror in all Glock owners hearts.

"Well, no.  Several lawsuits were filed by law enforcement personnel.  Many of these lawsuits were attempting to blame
Glock for negligent discharges when disassembling the pistol in order to
clean as one must pull the trigger in order to disassemble it.
 Nonetheless, there were and inevitably will be more, lawsuits resulting
from negligent discharges when attempting to reholster a Glock pistol.
 Some examples are:
1. An FBI agent
2. Massachusetts officer shoots hole through pants reholstering
3. Officer Bill McMahan
4. Harlan County"



And after reading this I wonder "How as a civilian I will ever be better than the Police?"

"So, do we have a mechanical problem with Glocks and other pistols that have
the safety on the trigger or do we have a training problem?
 Obviously, every pistol owner should take a training class that goes
beyond the good Lieutenant Colonel’s Four Rules.  However, with full time law enforcement personnel experiencing negligent discharges from their issued Glocks they were
trained to use, should we not expect negligent discharges from Glock
owning citizens?  The answer is “yes” and aside from the very real
(though not widespread) danger of negligently firing a Glock when
reholstering, "

While we are here point out to me where I find the answer to the first
sentence in my last quote. I am clearly under educated and trained as a
civilian so it my be a mute point. For that I must truly apologize.

I think a lot of people are missing the major benefit to this, and it really, really appeals to the dudes who appendix carry.

People who carry hammer fired pistols AIWB place their thumbs on the back of hammers when reholstering to ensure they don't fire into their groin if there is something crowding the holster.

The Gadget does the same thing, placing your thumb on it during the holstering process, ensuring you can't fire into your groin in the event there is foreign material in your holster.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just an aid for re-holstering. It won't stop stop the majority of ADs and NDs, but it wasn't designed to do that -- just to help reholster safely.