Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member Ruff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    453

    The Glock striker control device?

    This is basically an after market add-on holstering safety device and being a fan of safety (but not necessarily of the usual so-called 'safties') I don't see the harm of owning one. But I'm wondering if anyone has tried the thing and are they available in Canada?

    NRA guy reviews The Gadget on this video:

    People who work for a living are being overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Plinker 777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South East from the center of the Universe
    Posts
    749
    Interesting. I would like to know whether the gun will fire with hard psi of the shooters thumb on the "gadget".

    On it's face, I could see the competition guys/gals seeing an improvement, but for LEO's/Military/ CC folks...nay, nay. Particularly if there is even a fraction of a percentage of a chance that the "gadget" could cause the gun to cease firing. For this group, the use of the gun can be in a hand to hand type scenario (the "foe" grabbing/fighting over the gun, and to be preemptive, I agree, in that scenario the shooter has already really f**ked up...but it happens.)

    Penis with ears Chuck...(can't recall the idiots last name) actually speaks to a pistol whip technique and it raises the concern I mentioned in the event thumb psi would interfere with the striker, firing of the gun. I'll look for that link.

    James Yeager...not Chuck; anyhow, here's the vid's I was talking about. I'll post pistol whip 2.0 first as it shows in a real way what I was talking about, then I'll post pistol whip 101 which will show why it could be necessary to fire a gun with the rear of the slide being supported/ pushed forward. Incidentally, imho if you are on top of a guy and in control with a hand gun on your "foe"...no need to shoot. For some reason; (most likely due to the fact that he clearly is an idiot) he doesn't discuss that the scenario would see the shooter being attacked and on their back with attacker on top...defense v offence. In any regard,



    Last edited by Plinker 777; 03-19-2017 at 09:00 AM.
    "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."
    Sigmund Freud refers to the Irish.

  3. #3
    Senior Member glockfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,643
    since the device is just a ''witness'' of the striker, and that it is not ''engaged''' or hooked on any internal parts, i'd say why not. but i don't see it as ''must have'''.people who carries are supposed to be concious all the time about their gun in the holster. that means the holster have been positionned on their body in a way that sitting in a car, walking, running, getting involved in a brawl doesn't interfere with the security of the gun once holstered.

    again, carrying a gun is supposed to means conciousness of where the gun is, and what could interfere with the trigger at any moment which also means a quick check when reholstered .

    but since this device seems to not be engaged with any internal parts.......i'd say it would be a good antidepressor for the canadian CFO's who signs the permit to carry to new CCW'ers LOL!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Forbes/Hutton View Post
    I was hoping he would show up and do something useful in front of the cameras. Like beat the flames out with his face.

  4. #4
    Always against the grain Booletsnotreactwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    1,588
    I think it's dumb, and if this shit actually takes off it'll confirm just how retarded I think the tactical gun industry has become.

    I saw this a while ago on pistol forums, never figured it would take off. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....dget-REVEALED&

    So why do I think it's dumb? It's not the technique or concept per say that's dumb, it's the fact that you're starting out with the wrong platform. As nutnfancy would say, you got your POU (philosophy of use) all messed up.

    Having enclosed hammers/firing components/bobbed hammers goes back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. There's advantages and disadvantages. Part of the advantages of enclosed designs whether it's a 1903 Colt pocket hammerless or a Glock is having the snag free profile, having the firing components better protected against foreign matter or intrusions that can stop the firing cycle, etc... The disadvantages, you lose a degree of control over the firing group. You can't manually cock/lower the hammer, you can't manually thumb the hammer when re-holstering, etc...

    The way guns work today/what safety devices they have or don't have is directly related to the carry systems available and/or that are presently popular. Safetyless "enclosed" firing group design guns have advantages, they also have disadvantages and you must mitigate them. You want high quality hard plastic/synthetic material like Kydex holsters and you need to be very disciplined in technique. Notice both those guns and holster designs are popular today and plenty of people use them successfully without issues. It's not to say that it's the only way it should be done or that it's the best, but when used properly those systems work in stock configuration without the need for such add on device.

    Thumbing the hammer and engaging a manual safety when re-holstering is an old practice, back when all holsters were rickety flimsy loose fitting drooping leather and people kept their trigger fingers inside the trigger guard on pistols. If you have studied the history of handguns in defensive use you'll notice that some of the gold standard rules we have today didn't exist at one time. Back in the old days things like "trigger finger off the trigger" weren't hallmarks of safety like they are today, back then the techniques revolved around using the manual safety and thumbing the hammer.


    Bottom line with a quality purpose built holster and proper technique you shouldn't need such a device on a Glock pistol or any other internal striker fired safetyless handgun. Doing so implies to me that you don't have the right mindset or understand the advantage/disadvantage trade off of that platform.

    If you don't have access to such a setup or like the added safety/room for error then use a quality holster, proper technique and actually get a traditional hammer fired SAO or DA/SA handgun which is better suited from the get go to use those more traditional techniques.
    Last edited by Booletsnotreactwell; 03-19-2017 at 11:01 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ruff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    453
    ^^^ According to the video, the device is intended not just to overcome ordinary human carelessness (which is always going to be a factor) but also for high stress situations such as when an LEO has to holster his weapon to cuff a suspect and a spent brass or other debris has entered the holster. And in the US a concealed carry citizen would be under even greater stress if he had just had to shoot someone and then reholster. I would be more worried about the device affecting the functioning of a Glock in some unexpected way, time will tell I'm sure. If it catches on at all.
    People who work for a living are being overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.

  6. #6
    Senior Member RobertMcC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Half Albertian, Half Scotian
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruff View Post
    ^^^ According to the video, the device is intended not just to overcome ordinary human carelessness (which is always going to be a factor) but also for high stress situations such as when an LEO has to holster his weapon to cuff a suspect and a spent brass or other debris has entered the holster. And in the US a concealed carry citizen would be under even greater stress if he had just had to shoot someone and then reholster. I would be more worried about the device affecting the functioning of a Glock in some unexpected way, time will tell I'm sure. If it catches on at all.
    Most LEO that carry Glocks got the heaviest trigger that they got. What happens if the "gadget" gets jammed?

    Like the video said its not a replacement for good safety.
    When the rich wage war, It's the poor who die.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Plinker 777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South East from the center of the Universe
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Booletsnotreactwell View Post
    I think it's dumb, and if this shit actually takes off it'll confirm just how retarded I think the tactical gun industry has become.

    I saw this a while ago on pistol forums, never figured it would take off. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....dget-REVEALED&

    So why do I think it's dumb? It's not the technique or concept per se that's dumb, it's the fact that you're starting out with the wrong platform. As nutnfancy would say, you got your POU (philosophy of use) all messed up.

    Having enclosed hammers/firing components/bobbed hammers goes back to the late 1800's and early 1900's. There's advantages and disadvantages. Part of the advantages of enclosed designs whether it's a 1903 Colt pocket hammerless or a Glock is having the snag free profile, having the firing components better protected against foreign matter or intrusions that can stop the firing cycle, etc... The disadvantages, you lose a degree of control over the firing group. You can't manually cock/lower the hammer, you can't manually thumb the hammer when re-holstering, etc...

    The way guns work today/what safety devices they have or don't have is directly related to the carry systems available and/or that are presently popular. Safetyless "enclosed" firing group design guns have advantages, they also have disadvantages and you must mitigate them. You want high quality hard plastic/synthetic material like Kydex holsters and you need to be very disciplined in technique. Notice both those guns and holster designs are popular today and plenty of people use them successfully without issues. It's not to say that it's the only way it should be done or that it's the best, but when used properly those systems work in stock configuration without the need for such add on device.

    Thumbing the hammer and engaging a manual safety when re-holstering is an old practice, back when all holsters were rickety flimsy loose fitting drooping leather and people kept their trigger fingers inside the trigger guard on pistols. If you have studied the history of handguns in defensive use you'll notice that some of the gold standard rules we have today didn't exist at one time. Back in the old days things like "trigger finger off the trigger" weren't hallmarks of safety like they are today, back then the techniques revolved around using the manual safety and thumbing the hammer.


    Bottom line with a quality purpose built holster and proper technique you shouldn't need such a device on a Glock pistol or any other internal striker fired safetyless handgun. Doing so implies to me that you don't have the right mindset or understand the advantage/disadvantage trade off of that platform.

    If you don't have access to such a setup or like the added safety/room for error then use a quality holster, proper technique and actually get a traditional hammer fired SAO or DA/SA handgun which is better suited from the get go to use those more traditional techniques.
    ...welcome. I mean, if you're going to use Latin...use Latin. You know, carpe diem...own it!
    "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."
    Sigmund Freud refers to the Irish.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ruff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Plinker 777 View Post
    ...welcome. I mean, if you're going to use Latin...use Latin. You know, carpe diem...own it!
    Non esse in grammatica tyrannus. Immo et operam perdere.
    People who work for a living are being overwhelmed by people who vote for a living.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Plinker 777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South East from the center of the Universe
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruff View Post
    Non esse in grammatica tyrannus. Immo et operam perdere.
    Sed tantummodo intentum educationis et risus!
    "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."
    Sigmund Freud refers to the Irish.

  10. #10
    Always against the grain Booletsnotreactwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    1,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruff View Post
    ^^^ According to the video, the device is intended not just to overcome ordinary human carelessness (which is always going to be a factor) but also for high stress situations such as when an LEO has to holster his weapon to cuff a suspect and a spent brass or other debris has entered the holster. And in the US a concealed carry citizen would be under even greater stress if he had just had to shoot someone and then reholster. I would be more worried about the device affecting the functioning of a Glock in some unexpected way, time will tell I'm sure. If it catches on at all.
    That's the disadvantage of a no safety firearm. If something, whether it's something in the holster, a shirt that folded over or whatever somehow manipulates the trigger the same way your finger can then the gun will go off and you will shoot yourself, that's the nature of the beast. It's like appendix carry, for you to do it right you literally have to understand that if you get it wrong you will shoot yourself and where you're likely to shoot yourself has a high probability of being fatal over other carry methods.

    What I'm saying is, if you can't set yourself up to deal with that reality and train around it as best you can you're better off buying a true hammer fired gun where you can do the double safety thumbing the hammer thing. Jimmy rigging your Glock so that it functions like one seems like a bad idea.

  11. The Following User Liked This Post By Booletsnotreactwell

    Plinker 777 (03-20-2017)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •