His & Her pistols

[dawg23]

This may sound rude, but if you can't understand why a safety on a striker fired weapon is desireable, you MAY be less experienced with firearms than you think you are.

Dewd...............LSP has a "little" more experience with firearms than you might think.

Of course I have no way of accurately assessing your level of experience is. But if I were handicapping your expertise vs. LSP's, I'd have you as a 200:1 underdog on the betting line.

 

[CajunTim]

Is this website going to become like snipershide to where if you don't have at least 200 confirmed kills from a 1 mile plus your opinions are obsolete?

What works for one might not work for the other.

 

[dawg23]

Is this website going to become like snipershide to where if you don't have at least 200 confirmed kills from a 1 mile plus your opinions are obsolete?

What works for one might not work for the other.

I don't think Calhoun's post count has anything to do with the lack of validity of his comment.

And speaking of apples and oranges, I don't think LSP advocated the non-use of holsters.

 

[Ske1etor]

The holster is a Glock's safety.

Nope. Not trying to not sound rude. (That means that I am intentionally sounding rude, so when you read this post in your head, imagine me looking at you like you are stupid speaking very slowly so you can understand.)

YOUR BRAIN IS THE ONLY RELIABLE SAFETY ON A FIREARM (Think about that one for a minute). THE SAFETY OF A FIREARM IS REGULATED ONLY BY THE TOOL HANDLING THE TOOL.

 

[Calhoun123]

I have yet to see anyone refute what I have said with a reasoned and objective arguement. LSP, we have debated other issues before and I respect you and your opinion. My first comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. However, most of the folks on the internet who are spouting the "booger hook / bang switch" mantra do in fact have limited firearms knowledge.

I basically said the Glock is only safe if you carry it in an appropriate holster while other guns (arguably safer ones) can be carried without holsters (though not recommended). Does anyone argue that a Glock is safe to carry in condition 1 without a dedicated holster? The holster IS the Glock's safety.

The Glock pistol and holster together constitute a weapon's system. Other designs are simply more stand alone in nature. I think this is an important distinction when considering a purchase, especially when you talk about his & her pistols. One person (wife) is typically less into guns and as a result there is a training/safety issue to consider.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

I have yet to see anyone refute what I have said with a reasoned and objective arguement. LSP, we have debated other issues before and I respect you and your opinion. My first comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. However, most of the folks on the internet who are spouting the "booger hook / bang switch" mantra do in fact have limited firearms knowledge.

I basically said the Glock is only safe if you carry it in an appropriate holster while other guns (arguably safer ones) can be carried without holsters (though not recommended). Does anyone argue that a Glock is safe to carry in condition 1 without a dedicated holster? The holster IS the Glock's safety.

The Glock pistol and holster together constitute a weapon's system. Other designs are simply more stand alone in nature. I think this is an important distinction when considering a purchase, especially when you talk about his & her pistols. One person (wife) is typically less into guns and as a result there is a training/safety issue to consider.

I've heard some SERIOUSLY trained people talk about keeping their 'booger hooker off the bang switch' line.

I pretty much do agree with using a holster with a Glock... I wouldn't carry it 'Mex' like I have with a Hi Power or 1911...

Although I've pocket carried a 26 without a holster for ~ 11 months now... (people expect it to go off... but I tested it w/ an empty chamber first... No issues. At first I ment to get a holster, but...)

 

[Manimal]

The Glock pistol and holster together constitute a weapon's system. Other designs are simply more stand alone in nature. I think this is an important distinction when considering a purchase.

I'm far from a gun guru, but I agree with this.

 

[dawg23]

Does anyone argue that a Glock is safe to carry in condition 1 without a dedicated holster ?

Other designs are simply more stand alone in nature. I think this is an important distinction when considering a purchase, especially when you talk about his & her pistols.

I seem to recall another thread that covered all the reasons why people hate Glocks. http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4185
Not to be rude, but can we add your reasons to that list ?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Calhoun, here is my reasoned argument; "Mexican" style carry i.e. carrying a pistol without a holster stuffed in ones waist band is dumb. Not only is it unsafe but drawing a pistol from the waist band is slow and clumsy to say the least. Many, Many people have inflicted gunshot wounds on themselves whilst carrying in this fashion. I have seen 2 such incidents in person. One was a thug with a .38 snubbie stuffed in his pants that when the trigger was inadvently pressed while he was trying to get at his lighter put one in his thigh. The other was an Iraqi Police Officer with a DA/SA Ruger p95 who hung his pistol on the corner of his desk and blew his junk off. The primary reason that "Mexican" Carry is unsafe is because nothing prevents the trigger from being pressed inadvertantly. How can the trigger on any gun be free from this danger? Before someone tells me SA pistols are good to go consider the following story. In 2000 while in the US Army I was priviliged to participate in a training event with members of the IDF(Israeli Defense Force). I asked on of their senior NCOs about what I considered to be a bad tactic, their carrying oif pistols with an empty chamber and adding the step of racking the slide to the draw stroke. This soldierwe will call him MSG X told me that the reason that the Israelis adopted that tactic is because their issued SA BHP clones, the Jericho, had a nasty habit of going of prematurely during the draw. These pistols were often carried stuffed in waist bands. MSG X further told me that now that his unit had adopted the Glock 17 they carried the guns hot. The unit in question was no a run of the mill bunch of conscripts. In fact they were part of the Israeli Paratroop Brigade and several had served tours with Sayaret Maktal. To me the point of this story is bottom line if you carry a gun without a holster eventually the safety will get wiped off and the trigger fairy will take the day off and you will get a bang when you didn't need one. How is any gun with a trigger immune from this? What makes it less likely to happen with any gun other than a Glock?

 

[Calhoun123]

Well VG, to answer your question: a 5 pound trigger (only in the last part of the trigger pull) that only has to move about 5/8 of an inch is much more likely to fire than a 8-12 pound trigger of a revolver or da/sa auto. Furthermore, using the revolver as an example, not only does the trigger have to be actuated through a longer heavier arch, but the cylinder also has to be free to turn and the hammer has to be free to move up and down unimpeded.

 

[LACamper]

I think I've said before that I wasn't a fan of glock. They lack style. I also prefer a frame mounted safety. I've heard more than one story of a criminal getting ahold of someone's weapon, going to use it on them and not being able to turn the safety off. It might also keep a child from firing the gun if for some reason they got ahold of one (of course most kids can write programs in HTML now, so figuring out a safety isn't going to slow them down long...) Carrying a glock (or any handgun) without a holster just seems like you're asking for problems. Not to mention the holster keeps some of the debris out of the gun...
On the other hand, I carry a Keltec P3AT. I chamber when it goes in my pocket (in a holster), then clear it when it comes out. Its in a holster that covers the trigger and has a fairly heavy trigger pull.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I disagree I think snagging a trigger is snagging a trigger. I don't have any faith that I'm going to get a 8lbs snag and not a 5lbs snag. Either way if you think its better then do what you do I don't buy the argument.

 

[SimonJester308]

I have a paddle holster for mine with push button for release for when Im on the firing line, and when I dont want the neighbors to see me carrying it my hand while heading toward the vehicle, it fits just right into my back pocket. Goes into the vehicle first, then me. How have I survived this long without winning a darwin award, and blowing my cornholio off. Simple, no round chambered. Israeli Buttcheek Style. That and I dont take a running start towards the open door of the truck, as to add velocity to the throwing into the vehicle. I mean come on, I hear all these really lame reasons why a glock is a death trap waiting to happen, because it doesnt have the omniwa safety features, upto and including at least three of the following- combination lock, slide safety, grip safety, gotta carry hot while wearing a condom, dont dare stare at it or you gaze might cause an accidental discharge, please dont point because my mom makes me wear a helmet to school feature. If you dont want a glock because it doesnt have the safety features you prefer, then fine, spend your money, that you busted your ass for on a pistol that you like. Hell get as many as you want. But please quit stomping the maggots out of this horse with the same, I read somewhere, somebody told me, I know this guy who knew this guy that read on a forum whatever. I promise, the day I wake up from having asscheek replacement surgery, because my pistol finally went off "all of a sudden like" the first order of business after making sure the wedding tackle is still tied to the boat so to speak, I will tell you all how right you were, and I should have heeded the warnings. Ill even post the pics. There are pros and cons to everything, its referred to as "perspective"

 

[SimonJester308]

Glocks do not lack style, they just lack a style you prefer.

 

[dawg23]

I have to confess that I am a believer in holsters for all forms of carry, even in pockets. (Other than Simon's very reasonable periodic use of his pocket....that's more a matter of transporting, not "carrying"). I use the little el cheapo Desantis or Uncle Mike (~$12) for my J-frame and my PM9.

Having said that, I am not at all a believer in having an external safety on a self-defense handgun (except for 1911's.....and many of them have their own drawbacks for SD). If a person isn't competent enough to keep his finger off the trigger until the appropriate moment, he shouldn't be allowed to carry.

Of course some may differ with me on this.............which simply means they are wrong.
.
.

 

[Calhoun123]

I joined this thread because someone prior to me seemed to be being ridiculed for suggesting they would like a manual safety on a Glock. The issue of striker fired weapons needing a manual safety is not cut and dried IMHO. One size does not fit all. My goal has simply been to offer another opinion and back it up with a line of reasoning for you to consider.

 

[SimonJester308]

Fair enough, no one should be ridiculed for their opinion, unless someone is trying to lighten the mood. But it just seems to me that alot of the reasons presented are presented in such a way as to convey I am right, I have all these opinions from other sources that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact an idiot for carrying/buying/owning a (fill in the blank here of disputed firearm)