The folks at siderlock.com reckon Gaston got it wrong by not providing an external safety. They’re putting it right with a trigger-mounted safety that offers a “safer and more secure blockade of the firing action.” Yes but . . .
The folks at siderlock.com reckon Gaston got it wrong by not providing an external safety. They’re putting it right with a trigger-mounted safety that offers a “safer and more secure blockade of the firing action.” Yes but . . .
Safety first. Safety last. I see no problem here.
No problem with putting your finger on the trigger to disengage the safety? Seems rather backwards to me.
This is a horrifically irresponsible solution for a problem that does not exist.
I know of at least one report of a Glock discharging because a worn holster worked into the trigger guard. This safety might have prevented that.
Let’s all take a step back and look at the “Don’t place your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot” rule.
If I am placing my finger on the trigger to remove the safety I am ready to shoot. Think about that for a second.
But, but, you might pull the trigger when you disengage the safety!
If I am placing my finger on the trigger to remove the safety I am ready to shoot.
@Van
If I am placing my finger on the trigger to remove the safety I am ready to shoot.
Well I hope so. But that still does not make this “safety” a good idea. Think about it – you are putting you finger on the trigger to turn on/off THE SAFETY. Why is it difficult for people to see how ass-backwards it is?
I know of at least one report of a Glock discharging because a worn holster worked into the trigger guard. This safety might have prevented that.
I’m sorry but you don’t know that. Let’s take into account that the person your talking about (I know the story) was using a worn leather holster. Do you think that with that level of irresponsibility the person would have bothered to purchased and have installed, let alone use this “safety?”
I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that if the person would have been using a proper holster he could have avoided this particular ND. But again, he wasn’t even that responsible so I don’t think we can assume that he’d of used a manual safety.
I read these comments and for everyone I’d like to point out that Glock was and is designed as a DUTY GUN, If you are trained in handgun safety, specifically Glock , then you know that your Glock click -in holster is your Glock Safety. Otherwise, those of you who like to carry your Glock, (that you have no real need for) incorrectly (not in a clik-in holster) then for your sake and those around you, please install the siderlock. It is a good Idea for dummies who carry an unholstered Glock.
My duty Glock has the original 5.5 trigger, slide release, recoil spring assembly etc. but all four of my personals have night sights, extended slide release, steel guide rod, 3 pound trigger and all have a Siderlock because it is a good and prudent add on. It doesn’t take any more effort or time to shoot than shooting a Glock without it with a factory trigger weight.
Qfinaly someone who can see the advantage of a side lock. First of all its my Glock, if I wanna shi# On it I can. One of the things I hate most is all these “” professional know it all’s””, never liked them when I was a kid, and as you can see I still don’t. I don’t care how, or what you do to your stuff, I don’t even form an opinion, why, its none of my damn business. Got the side locker and LOVE IT, YOU WANT ONE, DO AS YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE.
I have the siderlock on two guns it works great, some gun people think Glock is perfect like it is. I hate to inform these type of people but there is no perfect gun.
I saw this at the Indy 1500 Gunshow this past weekend. Played with it for about 15 minutes. It is very intuitive and frankly, I like it. I imagine myself putting it on my G36 or G29, with a pants clip and feeling very comfortable carrying them in the summer months with no holster.
Congrats!
That is a dangerous idea.
Perhaps you’ll end up on YouTube.
Do you work for the DEA?
Go easy on IndyEric – he is the only one in the room who is qualified to… oh wait, never mind.
Man…the judgmental jerks floating around are highly prolific. This was my opinion, and my opinion only after actually touching and handling this product. I liked it. It was very intuitive, had no give and there was no way to actually engage the trigger while manipulatig the safety.
Go use it and then come back here with your holier than though attitude.
What exactly would make me qualified to give my opinion?
@IndyEric
Really, it’s not your opinion that’s the problem. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.
The fact is that you should not have your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to shoot. Most training teaches that the act of drawing the gun, and disengaging the safety are the same act. On a thumb safety your thumb is disengaging the safety while you draw. Depending on opinion disengaging the safety could take place as soon as you have a combat grip on the gun, or as you are bringing it up to ready. Either way, you keep your finger off the trigger until your absolutely ready to shoot.
With this “safety” you’re forced to stick you finger on the trigger to disengage the safety. On the range this might be ok, but under the stress of an attack, it’s not a good idea to have to stick you finger in the trigger guard, muddling about for the safety. This “safety” forces you to put you finger on the trigger to make the gun ready to fire, before you may be ready for it to fire…
Also, I could see how you could potentially re-engage the safety from you trigger finger wrapping around during firing and pressing it back in. Admittedly, this concern is a hypothetical as I’ve not used one.
In any case, if you can’t see the problem in placing the safety on the trigger then, well, good luck to you.
So, what you’re really saying is to go get a 1911?
It is very intuitive. I really liked it. And it opened a lot of possibilities with carrying a Glock in and unconventional manner. (Which is why I ordered one for my G36 today, and will probably get one for my 29 tomorrow.)
Why would I disengage the safety if I wasn’t ready to fire? I don’t “brandish” or “threaten.”
+1
Touching the trigger to turn off the safety…
What could possibly go wrong???
+1
Also, accidentally engaging the safety when touching the trigger in an important firing scenario… what could possibly go wrong???
Can’t engage it , to ingage you use your weak hand.
I have the siderlock on two guns it works great, some gun people think Glock is perfect like it is. I hate to inform these type of people but there is no perfect gun.
This is a very, very, bad idea. Setting aside the whole “Glocks don’t have an external safety” issue. Having to place your finger on the trigger to disengage the safety is an accident waiting to happen.
Siderlock should be ashamed of themselves for putting such an counter-intuitive, and unsafe product on the market.
Opinion’s are like assholes.
This would work great for those folks and LEOs that like to hang their glocks on hooks in restroom stalls and elsewhere!
HA!!!! Yessss
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Never touch the trigger unless you’re ready to destroy what you’re pointing at.
If someone doesn’t feel confident carrying and using a weapon without a manual safety, there are other pistols that will serve that user well.
If someone NEEDS a safety for a Glock, the Cominolli thumb safety would be a much less irresponsible addition.
Gee, with that Cominolli safety looks like you have to cut part of the receiver. No thank you. I’ll stick with a proper holster and keeping my finger off the trigger till I’m ready to shoot. Ya know, things you should do anyway.
ten ring precision, a guilded pistolsmith and pistolsmith of the year in the 90’s installs hundreds of thumb safeties on Glocks in the San Antonio area for mostly police….
I have not used the siderlock but can’t see a problem….you don’t touch the trigger to disengage the safety….you push it through and then touch the front of the trigger to make it go bang…could be a major problem as I haven’t used one but I personally think its not a bad idea for someone who wants a safety on their glock….my nickle
But for us who want this on our Glock we love it, its called it my gun, not yours, and yes I’m confident, confident its none of your business.
You ignorant twit
Wrong person
Enough has been said about this safety – dumb idea. Equally bad idea is the clip on the slide for IWB carry. Not having anything to cover the trigger will inevitably cause an ND. And the trigger safety shown doesn’t make using the clip any safer.
Why not?
I actually used this safety.
It is worth pointing out that if one desires a pistol similar to a Glock with different safety features, they can get an XD, or an M&P, or even one of the newer Taurus’ that come with them from the factory. They are all good guns, I’ve shot each brand extensively.
(braces for brand flames)
-D
“that come with them from the factory”
Those guns you listed do not come from the factory with the siderlock safety.
Yes… they do come with “different safety features” from the factory, as in different from Glock safety features.
No claim was made that anything comes with siderlock from the factory. Nothing ever will come with anything like siderlock from the factory, as that would be a ridiculous liability.
(braces for unexpected reading comprehension flames)
-D
The wording in your fist comment made it sound like you were saying that they came w/the siderlock safety… just wanted to clarify that.
“Different safety features” is the subject of the sentence, so “them” naturally refers to “different safety features”. The wording is not ambiguous.
-D
@Don
Sorry, I skim… din’t catch that.
Seems like a very bad idea. Kind of like carrying a gun with no holster covering the trigger. Hopefully no one gets hurt.
“Think about it – you are putting you finger on the trigger to turn on/off THE SAFETY. Why is it difficult for people to see how ass-backwards it is?”
Let’s take this safety out of the picture and look at a plain old Glock. Where is the safety? On the trigger. How do you disengage it? You put your finger on it.
I think the disconnect here is how this safety SHOULD be used. It should not be used like a regular safety, where you disengage it to make the gun ready before you are ready to shoot. How can I put this clearer? I think the detractors of this safety see the following scenario happening:
1.) Shooter places finger on trigger to disengage safety, violating a cardinal rule of gun safety.
3.) Finger goes back outside trigger guard until target is acquired.
I see this safety as being used in the following manner:
Shooter places finger on trigger to disengage safety because they are ready to shoot, which is what they would have to do with a stock Glock anyway. They’ve just given themself an extra step to complete before firing.
See the difference there?
I think the reason why this is different is it is an active safety with respect to operation of the pistol and it is on the trigger, as opposed to a passive safety with respect to the operation of the pistol, like the existing Glock trigger safety.
-D
Active, passive, I think that is semantics. Look at how the safety should be used, as I posted.
Interchangeable semantics are unimportant but these are not interchangeable. A passive safety feature with respect to the operation of some device is a feature which does not require additional actions or manipulations to employ, like the grip safety on a 1911 or the trigger safety on a glock. Active with respect to the operation of the pistol means that you need to manipulate something extra to employ it, like a thumb safety or this thing. So they really are different classes of device with different implications for use.
I think the fundamental disagreement is that from a safety standpoint, the only manipulation of the trigger which should should be done is that which results in firing the pistol. This device would not allow the gun to be drawn and made ready without touching the trigger and in a tense situation this could result in shooting before or at something you don’t intend to.
-D
@Van
The one thing you ignoring is that in a stressful situation you’d have to dig your finger in and push on the trigger in order to fire the gun at all.
Your assuming two things:
1. That you’d be able to do this while keeping the gun on target, or otherwise pointed in a safe direction.
2. That you could do this under stress without inadvertently firing the gun.
Regardless of where the gun is pointed if it goes off when you don’t intend it to, it’s an ND. Never-mind the fact that this “safety” requires you to use your other hand to re-engage it, or some fancy trigger-finger gymnastics.
Let’s take this safety out of the picture and look at a plain old Glock. Where is the safety? On the trigger. How do you disengage it? You put your finger on it.
Can you say “straw man?” The trigger safety on a Glock does not work the same way as this safety is designed to work. It’s not designed to. A comparison is irrelevant.
This thing is so incredibly stupid that I’m fairly certain that the people supporting it either work for the company, or are playing devil’s advocate for the sake of having an argument.
My last comment on this topic before I go and rearrange my sock drawer.
“The one thing you ignoring is that in a stressful situation you’d have to dig your finger in and push on the trigger in order to fire the gun at all.
Your assuming two things:
1. That you’d be able to do this while keeping the gun on target, or otherwise pointed in a safe direction.
2. That you could do this under stress without inadvertently firing the gun.”
Having never held a Glock with this safety I’m not sure I’m assuming anything.
Perhaps you are assuming:
1. That you’d NOT be able to do this while keeping the gun on target, or otherwise pointed in a safe direction.
2. That you could NOT do this under stress without inadvertently firing the gun.”
I really don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be your opinion.
“This thing is so incredibly stupid that I’m fairly certain that the people supporting it either work for the company, or are playing devil’s advocate for the sake of having an argument.”
I assure you I personally don’t work for this company. Nor would I put this on my Glock. If this safety does indeed turn out to be problematic I’m sure a little thing called the free market will take care of it. That’s the great thing about it, you get to vote with your pocketbook.
@Van
I carry a Glock every day. I recognize that the Glock does not have a manual safety for a reason. I recognize the stupidity of this product. I carry in a suitable holster and practice trigger discipline.
Because this is a free market, we need to do our best to tell people what an incredibly stupid idea this is, so those that don’t know better, can know better.
I am buying two.
I love the free market. Get off your horse.
@IndyEric
I’m not on a horse. I don’t like horses.
I like how active/passive safeties are just “semantics”
The existing Glock safety takes into account that you ARE indeed ready to fire, aka, “passive”
“Active/manual” safeties do not go hand in hand with being “ready to fire”, thus making this product stupid, and unsafe. If you own a Glock, you should have only the utmost self control and trigger discipline. You don’t buy a Glock because you want to make it *safer*
I know it’s confusing to some people who don’t understand the technicalities of gun mechanics and handling, but don’t run back screaming at the gun manufacturer when it’s YOUR aftermarket item that caused an ND. Glock wouldn’t make a handgun with only their passive safety if it needed to be modified.
Calling it “semantics” is just an excuse for not having a leg to stand on.
I violated one of my own cardinal rules by getting into this discussion on a blog. I should have just stuck to my normal mantra, “Whatever turns your crank”.
It’s hard not to get into internet conversations.. it’s part of human nature now.
That being said, just because people have different opinions, doesn’t mean they’re bad people! 🙂
I can grow tomatoes hanging from a bag on a hook too…
Geez, what kind of handy dandy Ronco accessories are coming out next?
If you buy a “G” gun cause it’s tacticool and never fails, and than need to make yourself more comfortable, modifying it’s design…than get a FN, or a Sig, or preferably practice and train more.
What’s next? Safeties on my J-Frame, or other revolvers?
Well aren’t you the pro? I bought two of these safety’s one for my Glock, and one to piss off pro’s like you.
When my Glock 20 is configured as a hunting pistol, I utilize a 6” barrel and a Siderlock. It is pointed at a deer when I take the safety off. I don’t want any chance of a ND when busting through heavy brush and/or when I fall out of the tree stand.
Otherwise I try to keep the Glock’s standard/stock; just the way Glock intended.
I have one on my 26. Love it.
Finger does not go into trigger guard to click safety. Safety is very directional – must be pushed laterally, with a fingertip. Finger does not touch front of trigger. Glock trigger is a long throw before discharge – it’s not like you’re messing with a 1911 with a hair trigger.
Perfect? Nope. A great improvement, making a safer gun? I think so.
@bobby b
There is a name for what your doing – cognitive dissonance.
The trigger safety on the Glocks are a drop safety or you might call it an inertia safety. Most striker fired systems use this design. It keeps the gun from firing when dropped and only that.
A Glock needs this like a bull needs tits.
I may be a cold-hearted bastard, but I’ve never cared about my Glock’s needs. Let your Glock start whining about how often you take it out, let it start in about how you don’t clean it or lube it enough, or about how it deserves that cool new $200 holster or complains that if you keep feeding it that yucky low-class WalMart ammunition, it’s gonna start jamming up on you, well, hell, you might as well start seeing that new Sig you met at the range. High maintenance, sure, but hooowhee!
Nope, screw the Glock’s “needs”. It’s all about me.
Wow, just look at all the negative banter by people who have never held or used this device.
“what if you accidentally engage it when you need to fire the weapon…”
Your arrogance and ignorance is very apparent. If you had actually used the product, you would know this is not an issue.
Next time, try using a product before you review it 😉
I have looked at the schematics and 3d models on the website I believe you could accidentally re-engage the safety with the thumb of your supporting hand in a fighting scenario.
Arrogance is when you think you are allowed make baseless assumptions to try to prove a point. Ignorance is when you think ad hominem is a valid proof for your point.
How come it’s impossible to have a technical or logistical discussion here without someone getting personal?
Oh that’s right, it’s the internet.
-D
You should see the stuff I delete. Or . . . maybe not.
tend to agree with you….a glock really doesn’t have a safety,,,its just a safe trigger that won’t go off if dropped etc….there isn’t anything to keep it from going off if you pull on it….siderlock will prevent this and with a looong pull how could you possibly pull the trigger while pushing the safety off…I would have it on most of the time but if I was in any kind of situation where I might need it the safety would be pushed through…I personally think a lot of these guys ….well lets don’t go there….I do know a lot of gun reps, manufacturers and writers and I have heard a lot of them say that half the people that own our products should not be allowed near them….adios..
You can’t tell these guys, they know all there is to know on any subject, when I was growing up I had a cousin like them, my uncle heard him bragging one day about building a room on his house, my uncle looked at me and winked and said ” he couldn’t drive a peg in a dead hogs ass.
I read this. I listened to the video and watched it. I read all of the comments posted prior. I came to one conclusion.
If you really think having the world’s most unique safety is a good idea on a combat style pistol that is popularly used for defense I think there’s a flaw in that. The reflex that you have to learn to disengage the safety smoothly is not going to carry to any other firearm and that by itself says it is not intuitive. You are used to disengaging and engaging safeties that go down and up with your shooting thumb. We have very likely all held pistols where there was a safety on the left side of the pistol for the right handed shooter. Putting a safety into a place where your business finger has to do more work than pull the trigger is adding a step in a place where it does not need to be. It’s a bad place to pick to add an additional step but the folks at Siderlock put it there for lack of anywhere else to put it without having to do excessive work to the weapon.
Does the safety have its uses? Not for me, no. Not for a lot of the people flaming it either. That’s to be expected. I read one comment where a handgun hunter uses it. That alone does justify the invention of the device, which is a clever but simple device as stated in the video. I will not take that away from the invention.
Does it violate the cardinal rule of not touching the trigger before intentionally destroying the area directly before the muzzle of the pistol? Every single time you touch that button you break that rule. A lot of the comments circle around that, real solid reasoning to circle on it as without a doubt this safety will be the cause of at least one negligent discharge. That safety combined with handler error like most NDs. But since you will be disengaging for what could be a combat situtation an ND while drawn down on someone could be an accidental injury or death. The odds of that increase only by the nature of the time that the risky behavior is performed.
I am more worried about placing this safety on a moving object. I personally do not like slide mounted safeties for the same reason. Since the trigger is the only other external moving part of the pistol I would not think an additional safety there would be ideal. A ham fingered person squeezing frantically at an angle could re-engage the safety at an inopportune time. The current safety is held rearward by the trigger finger and depressed during every positive actuation motion of the lever. The motion of the gun doesn’t affect that safety but if you jerk the gun sideways or it is maybe pulled away from you that can definitely have an effect on whether the gun has the safety engaged or not. Not to mention that long time Glock shooters are not thinking about a manual safety by default from habit and if you were going to use this on one of your Glocks defensively you should use it on them all to make your manipulation of your weapons uniform muscle memory. This way you recall that you have to remove the safety the time you will not have the luxury of screwing up.
I think the concept is benign but the execution is flawed, regardless of the innovation used to contrive it.
Didn’t watch the entire video or read all the responses. Seems to me that anyone who would put one of these things on a Glock oughta be trading the Glock for something else. Something with a real safety.
And the guy making the video needs to clean and file his fingernails.
For all of you who are critical of manual safeties and think that they are an impediment in stressful combat situations, consider the fact that firearms with manual safeties have seen and will continue to see more combat than Gaston Glock could ever imagine. Why? Basic safety — they prevent AD/ND’s.
Also, you may wish to consider that when Gaston originally designed the Glock Model 17 in 1980., it was never intended to be carried with a round in the chamber. Why? At that time, Glock thought it was unsafe to do so, and specifically warned against it.
One last point, the reason why a manual safety is a good idea on a Glock is that, unlike double action revolvers that have long, hard 10-12 lb. trigger pulls, the standard Glock has a relatively short 5.5 lb. trigger pull. The result has been many, many cases of Glock leg. My information is that even Gaston refuses to carry his Glock with a hot chamber for that very reason.
True story. In Glock, the author reveals that Gaston had to chamber a round in order to properly threaten his underling (who was embezzling).
This is an excellent concept to reduce accidents particularly when people with new concealed weapons permits are handling a loaded firearm. Shotguns have had this type safety for ages and anyone with hunting experience understand the intended function. The individuals making negative comments are either expert firearm handlers with little regard for less experienced people or out to lunch relative to using common sense.
Just know it all’s, been around for ages and no-one likes-em.
I’m not sure what you were taught when you started out with firearms but I was strictly taught that if your finger is inside the trigger guard you are prepared to destroy what is on the other side of the pointed barrel. With that being said safety inside or outside the trigger guard is does not matter, if you are touching the trigger you are ready to fire. The other thing that I was taught was if you holster your weapon it is just as important to maintain your holster as well as your weapon. If you are apprehensive about the seating of any of the parts on your weapon inside the holster you should either fix it or replace the holster. And if it makes you more comfortable having an external slidelock safety on your Glock I know that they do make kits that you can install in about 3 minutes. Along with that Gaston Glock put safety first and there are 3 internal safeties that are also working at all times. You can chamber a round and throw it out of a plane and it will not discharge. And if you have issues about the safety features on Glock products there are other products out there that you can buy so stop complaining about something that you are not being forced to buy. Most accidental discharges are caused by people either being ignorant of the weapon they are handling or they are doing something that they know they should not be doing.
humm the safety on the MI garand is inside the trigger guard. WTF, I have had the siderlock on my G19 for over 5 years. It is super, u don’;t put ur finger on the trigger to disenge it either. U push from the side of the trigger, there is a difference, and u still have the glock Style SAS trigger working, so u definitely hav eto pull the trigger. It is an excellet system. Sure u can pick it apart, but keeping ur finger out of that area is a must but this system is far safer than that SAS that glocks puts out, let alone ALL STEEL and certainly attractive. Probalby not for u super macho guys
Not super macho, super SMARTASSES.
Got the slider lock on all Glocks! It is just perfect! Adam, don’t you wish you had invented this! All your anti comments suggests it!
Just bought a Glock 26 Gen 4. I shot several Glock models including the 26, the 36, and the 30 putting about 600 rounds thru them. Carried them around and holstered them and got the feel of my very first Glock experience on the range. I have not been able to get excited about Glocks having preferred Colt 1911 styles and Beretta pistols. This gun *will* get carried in a pants pocket, coat pocket, holster, etc as it will be one of a few pistols I carry concealed.
The first thing it got was a Siderlock and it’s *still* faster to get safely into action than any other pistol I own. It isn’t better than Gaston designed it, just a little safer for what I intend to do with it. Blasphemy? Only to Glock Fan Boyz. I love my Glock and my Sliderlock. YMMV.
VooDoo
When glocks got ta be a big deal, that was fine,, Some retards dont like a extra safty on a pistol that has none NONE,, Its the most unsafe pistol on earth , with retards saying , just dont pull trigger?? How fking stupid!!!
If u were a cop and got into a fight over your weapon , who ever pulls trigger fires gun!! , No you have the option to engage a sideways pushed trigger block, u don have ta use it, nope, carry yor 200 rounds of 9 mm with one in pipe, shoot your balls off!! Or look at pistol and push safty on, you can carry in rear of jeans and not have a clump of tee shirt push unlocked trigger, the shoot hole in ur ass, or kill someone while putting pistol in shoulder holster pointed ta rear,, No matter what u do you use your brain!! Ill take safety any day … glocks shoot more people by mistake than all other combined,, Some retards walk aroung pretendiny there armchair comandos ???? look at surveys…. all the 20 yearolds running around with 200 rnds of ammo, ready for big gunfight,,,
Wake the fuck up heros!!!Glock needs a good safety, that trigger thing is stuppid, u retard, go buy 100 round clips and blow your balls off,,, glocks ar not that good,,i own a few, and 10 1911s,, keep your 9mm s cowboys!!!glock are the most unsafe pistol on earth,, make sure ya all do ur 25 cent trigger jobs,,, what a joke,,,keep givin the safe people a bad rap,, Glocks need safetys!!!!!hope you find 100 rnd clips,, retards
I think all you commandos are missing the point. If you are sticking your finger in the trigger guard to disengage the safety, you intend to fire the gun. It’s that simple, you keep applying the 1911 mind-set of drawing, sweeping off the safety lever, then focusing on the target, which doesn’t apply here. The Siderlock is a different mind-set/concept in that you only disengage the safety when you are actually about to fire the weapon therefore, there is no “unsafe” action taking place.
It’s a good product that alleviates the concern of concealed carry AD’s for the average Joe. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, but don’t bash those that find it useful.
Extra piece of mind while exercising quick and blind re-holstering drills. Don’t know what all the hate is about. There is an extra training curve involved, and if you don’t like it, don’t use it. Pretty simple really.
Those who say using your finger to disengage the SiderLock is an impermissable risk of AD/ND have obviously never handled a gun with a SiderLock installed.
With the SiderLock engaged you can put your finger on the trigger and pull all you want. The gun will not fire. Secondly, attempting to pull the trigger reminds you instantly the SiderLock must be disengaged since you feel the inner trigger lever very distinctly.
Disengaging the SiderLock requires a sideways push on the button with the tip of the finger which is 90 degrees from the motion to fire. The gun cannot fire until the SiderLock button is pushed flat with the side of the trigger. There is a definite detent as the button is pushed in either direction. The button cannot move by itself.
The vaunted “three sequential safeties” of the Glock firing mechanism really boil down to just one….the inner trigger lever. If that is depressed the other two safeties really don’t matter as they are internal and offer no further resistance.
As far as the time needed to disengage the SiderLock….
I believe those who say fractions of a second count when drawing and firing in a life-threatening situation are grossly exaggerating. Using a gun defensively is not a wild-west shoot-out where the fastest draw wins. The bad guy approaching you may already have his hand on his gun and you have no indication what his intentions are. You have to retreat and find cover if possible to be able to assess the situation, draw, aim, and fire. And perhaps drawing a weapon will be enough. You always hope so rather than the judicial proceedings looming if you do fire the weapon.
Wow! What a bunch of immature haters. Apparently this product has been out for quite some time. Have there been any reported accidental discharges? If not, then shut up about it.
I will be adding a safety to my G26, either traditional or Sider. Get over it.
Ever see the video of the cop in a classroom shooting himself while reholstering his Safe Glock? Shit happens.
It happens with 1911s too.
Get over yourselves. You’re all such experts in your own minds.
Most of you have zero idea what you would actually do in a real combat situation. You won’t know until you’re in it.
How about being more understanding and supportive? Apparently being a Hater comes easier to a lot of you.
Good luck to all. It’s a strange world out there.
Ugh, is anyone else just about fed up with Glock fan boyz, weekend warriors and their holier than thou overly emotional responses about every little thing? Yeah, we get it…you guys are the SAFEST most accomplished gun gurus of all time and Glocks need zero improvements because, like they say, they are perfection just the way they are. Oh No!!! Don’t touch the side of the trigger in an entirely diffferent direction to turn off a safety that isn’t needed!! I guess all of us mere mortal gun owners are just a bunch of idiots then. So sorry to offend you badasses by putting such an unsafe device on my Glocks….You just keep being morally superior and praying to your God who goes by the name Gaston.
I also really enjoy the responses that inevitably go to…well, well, ugh..well, if you don’t like a Glock EXACTLY how it comes from the factory then buy a different gun because only us fanboyz who think they are perfect should own them! Yeah, like nobody modifies their guns right?
Except you know, it’s been out for years now and there have been exactly NO problems reported. Yep, you were ALL wrong. It’s a great safety feature for those who want this sort of thing. Great idea, works perfect. I have three and just ordered another one. Maybe it’s time for Adam to get back on here and admit he’s a jackass who shot off his mouth offending a shit load of people? Nah, never happen.
Ok all you guys who are slandering about this being unsafe because you have to put your finger on the trigger to disengage safety are frankly ignorant. YES putting your finger on the trigger before you are ready to shoot in unsafe and irresponsible Gun handling. And for all you that say “if you want a safety just buy another Gun”. Some people still love their glocks and the reliability and yadda yadda yadda. They shouldn’t need to buy another gun if this makes them feel safer. As for the function in this device if practiced with and used properly I personally feel it will do the job absolutely safely. I have many guns some have safety some don’t. For the ones that have traditional safetyies, after gun is in hand and controlled I unlock safety with finger still off the trigger till ready to fire. People just have to train them selves differently with this safety and it will be just as safe. Example after pulling gun from holster finger still stays off trigger and unlike traditional safeties where in a life or death situation, safety comes off, finger off trigger till ready to fire. With this device the safety stays on until the exact time you are ready to fire and since safety is on trigger you can do everything in one quick motion safety off/squeeze. At that point you were already comitted to pulling the trigger. Most of my nonsaftey guns have heavier trigger pulls which are my safety but glocks trigger pull at least the one I own is half the weight to pull back and as I like this for shooting but not for safety.
Wow, this argument has been going on for 7 years now? Let me put it to rest, all those who think, as I do, that the Siderlock is the coolest thing since plastic straws are highly intelligent and have their stuff together. Those that don’t are a bunch of dumbasses. There, case closed.
I get a kick out reading what these “glock perfection” guys feel about their glocks. They put extensions on the magazines, stipple the plastic, put aftermarket parts everywhere but if someone installs the siderlock they are totally aghast. I put a siderlock on two glocks and like them a lot so get over it . I actually come up with the idea of a safety on the trigger 10 years before siderlock but didn’t patent it or develop the manufacturing process. So you could say definitely like the design. Another thing you detractors- get a life.
I love the “fact” that Mr. Glock designed the gun to be carried with chamber unloaded, but the socalled gun experts will carry their Glock chambered in a holster against the advice of Mr. Glocktalk. These same “experts” will modify their Glocks in multiple ways but condemn someone for putting a Siderlock on a Glock. Maybe a little hypocritical maybe.
Chuck
I’ve had Cominolli’s and Siderlock’s. Siderlock is superior because Cominolli requires a cut in the plastic (which can let crud in) but more importantly the Cominolli’s over time can become unreliable, that is to say the Cominolli can be jerked into non-functional mode by the impact of the previous shot. If you want to have to put your thumb safety back down again every time you pull the trigger in the middle of a firefight, then the Cominolli is for you. Siderlock has been totally reliable for 7-8 years, while my Cominolli’s went bad after about one year of use. All this has been with Gen 4 Glock 29’s, and Cominolli failure mode was noticed at 42 degrees Fahrenheit. Maybe your pistol or your caliber will work fine with Cominolli, or maybe do great at higher temperatures. All I know is I got a 100% eventual failure rate with Cominolli after a year, but eternal (so far) 100% reliability with Siderlock and zero maintenance.
Shotguns and rifles have had push safeties like this of one style or another like forever. No problem.
To me it fixes a horrific oversite by Glock.
Wait a minute…. So the GLOCK pistol comes with a trigger safety “lever/dongle” and to disengage it you have to put your finger ON THE TRIGGER??? Think about that when you read all these “experts” saying putting your finger on the trigger to disengage the safety is a bad idea Duh. Also pushing on the side of the trigger to disengage the safety will NOT cause the GLOCK factory trigger safety to disengage hence all three factory safeties are still in play. Some are trying to make something out of a big fat nothing sandwich. The additional layer of safety is great if it works for you and you like it. Final thought; If someone gets your gun away from you that additional safety may save your life!! Think about it.
The trigger safety on the Glocks are a drop safety or you might call it an inertia safety. Most striker fired systems use this design. It keeps the gun from firing when dropped and only that.