Glocks have three separate safety devices, but they do not have a toggleable safety switch on the outside of the gun, commonly referred to as a “thumb safety”.
You will not be able to make a Glock fire unless you put your finger in the trigger and pull it. They are 100% drop-safe, meaning even if you have the gun loaded and it falls off a table, etc., it will not fire a round (unlike guns in the movies).
This makes Glocks a very appealing self-defense handgun. In a real self-defense shooting scenario, it is unlikely that you will have the time or dexterity to disengage the thumb safety before firing. Assuming you remember to do it at all.
There’s something called the rule of threes in self defense shootings: most encounters happen at 3 yards, last 3 seconds, and 3 rounds are fired. If someone is sprinting at you from 9 feet away, the extra split second of fumbling around with the gun to turn the safety off could make a big difference. Concealed carry instructors will commonly tell students to submerge their hands in a bowl of ice water for a full minute, then attempt to handle their (unloaded) gun and operate the action and thumb safety. It’s nearly impossible. That’s the amount of dexterity you will have in an actual life threatening situation due to the sudden rush of adrenaline.
When carrying a handgun for self defense, we use other factors to mitigate a negligent discharge. For example, your holster must completely cover the trigger when the gun is seated so it cannot be fired when holstered.
I carry a Glock daily for self defense and have never had an issue with the lack of a thumb safety, because I follow the rules of gun safety very strictly.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don’t have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
And the same goes for DA/SA or SA-only automatics. Most tend to have manual safeties, some have de-cockers only or can be transformed to that configuration.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
Just the trigger. A safety in the “handle” would be a grip safety, which some guns have but not Glocks (unless it is some obscure small run model, but certainly none of the common ones). It looks like an extra panel on the back of the grip which is squeezed into the grip when held.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
They’ve tried that. Take a coin, call a side, and flip it. Did you get it right? Gun shoots. Did you get it wrong? The other guy shoots and you die. That’s how accurate the biometric safety is.
Also, on a device that is under extreme vibration and shock loads when used, this equipment will have issues and fail at the worst time. Guns are effective because they are drop dead simple in design.
It’s a thing, and has been since the late 90’s (I think). Reliability is the main issue. The first one I had heard of had mechanical reliability problems If I remember correctly.
Haven’t looked at Biofires products lately, but they weren’t really weatherproof last I heard and weren’t recommended for duty use as a result. And then there is the eye watering sticker price. A Taurus PT92 is less than half the price of the Biofire, and has a track record for good reliability.
I seem to remember a state, New Jersey, I think, had a law on the books saying that if multiple manufacturers came out with biometricly locked firearms that biometric locks would then become mandatory. As for if that would help things, probably not.
no safety? i assumed all guns legally had to include a safety lock.
Glocks have three separate safety devices, but they do not have a toggleable safety switch on the outside of the gun, commonly referred to as a “thumb safety”.
You will not be able to make a Glock fire unless you put your finger in the trigger and pull it. They are 100% drop-safe, meaning even if you have the gun loaded and it falls off a table, etc., it will not fire a round (unlike guns in the movies).
This makes Glocks a very appealing self-defense handgun. In a real self-defense shooting scenario, it is unlikely that you will have the time or dexterity to disengage the thumb safety before firing. Assuming you remember to do it at all.
There’s something called the rule of threes in self defense shootings: most encounters happen at 3 yards, last 3 seconds, and 3 rounds are fired. If someone is sprinting at you from 9 feet away, the extra split second of fumbling around with the gun to turn the safety off could make a big difference. Concealed carry instructors will commonly tell students to submerge their hands in a bowl of ice water for a full minute, then attempt to handle their (unloaded) gun and operate the action and thumb safety. It’s nearly impossible. That’s the amount of dexterity you will have in an actual life threatening situation due to the sudden rush of adrenaline.
When carrying a handgun for self defense, we use other factors to mitigate a negligent discharge. For example, your holster must completely cover the trigger when the gun is seated so it cannot be fired when holstered.
I carry a Glock daily for self defense and have never had an issue with the lack of a thumb safety, because I follow the rules of gun safety very strictly.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
I’ll just add most (all?) revolvers have no manual safety other than a heavier and long double action pull on the trigger.
Just a reminder that single action revolvers still exist and don’t have the heavier pull. They also don’t have manual safeties, as far as I’m aware.
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don’t have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
And the same goes for DA/SA or SA-only automatics. Most tend to have manual safeties, some have de-cockers only or can be transformed to that configuration.
The safety is integrated into the trigger, so if you keep your finger off the trigger then the gun is supposedly in safety mode.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
Just the trigger. A safety in the “handle” would be a grip safety, which some guns have but not Glocks (unless it is some obscure small run model, but certainly none of the common ones). It looks like an extra panel on the back of the grip which is squeezed into the grip when held.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
The recent Sig P 320 chosen by the US Army has variants with no manual safety and doesn’t have the trigger safety.
It still has internal safeties but there have been issues with accidental discharges with the earlier productions.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
thanks for the good responses. i wonder if every gun had fingerprint sensor locks, would that help fix things? or just take away our rights?
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
They’ve tried that. Take a coin, call a side, and flip it. Did you get it right? Gun shoots. Did you get it wrong? The other guy shoots and you die. That’s how accurate the biometric safety is.
Also, on a device that is under extreme vibration and shock loads when used, this equipment will have issues and fail at the worst time. Guns are effective because they are drop dead simple in design.
https://smartgun.com/
It’s a thing, and has been since the late 90’s (I think). Reliability is the main issue. The first one I had heard of had mechanical reliability problems If I remember correctly.
Haven’t looked at Biofires products lately, but they weren’t really weatherproof last I heard and weren’t recommended for duty use as a result. And then there is the eye watering sticker price. A Taurus PT92 is less than half the price of the Biofire, and has a track record for good reliability.
I seem to remember a state, New Jersey, I think, had a law on the books saying that if multiple manufacturers came out with biometricly locked firearms that biometric locks would then become mandatory. As for if that would help things, probably not.