Removing the Firing Pin Block

[Cy Soto]

Hello Folks,

Why is it that is perfectly OK to remove the Firing Pin Block on a CZ pistol (an option that top gunsmiths Angus H. and Matthew M. offer as part of their trigger pull lightening/smoothing process) but doing so in a Glock is frowned upon? Is this because of legal/safety issues, is it that the removal of the FPB on a Glock will cause it to malfunction, or is it something else?

Thanks!

-Cy

[Micah]

I believe you are referring to the safety plunger in a Glock? That part insures that the striker will not hit the primer of a chambered round until the trigger is pulled. If you remove that, then if the drop safety malfunctions you have a dangerous situation.

[Cy Soto]

I believe you are referring to the safety plunger in a Glock? That part insures that the striker will not hit the primer of a chambered round until the trigger is pulled. If you remove that, then if the drop safety malfunctions you have a dangerous situation.

True, but this is also what the FPB on a CZ does, is it not? I know that the CZ has a half-cock notch on its trigger but the shooter can by-pass this notch and lower the trigger all the way down to contact the firing pin; this will also allow the weapon to discharge if it were to be dropped on its hammer. But the thing is that many people don't see this as a major issue with the CZ pistol but with the Glock they get a little anxious; there has got to be a reason for this, but I still don't understand.

[Flexmoney]

and...it holds the extractor in, right?

[atmar]

flex,

i think its the other way around. bcos if it like what you say then the gun wouldnt need the extractor spring wouldnt it.

[jobob]

I believe the firing pin safety plunger holds the extractor in position. So, I don't thnk the gun would be very functional without it.

HOLD IT! I was wrong in the above statement! Before hitting the 'add reply' button I tried it in one of my Glocks. The extrator stays put, and does, in fact, extract cartridges without the firing pin safety plunger in place. I haven't fired a gun in this condition, and I don't know how long the extractor would stay in place while actually shooting the gun. I don't think there is enough pressure supplied by the extractor plunger spring to keep it in the gun without the firing pin safety plunger. Only way to find out would be to try it.

I'll let someone else do it, though. I don't really want to be searching the range on my hands and knees looking for my lost extractor!

[kurtm]

Now I am NOT saying deactivate ANY safety plunger/device, but for the last 6 years I have never had to get down on my hands and knees to look for an extractor...open 24. KurtM

[bountyhunter]

I believe you are referring to the safety plunger in a Glock? That part insures that the striker will not hit the primer of a chambered round until the trigger is pulled. If you remove that, then if the drop safety malfunctions you have a dangerous situation.

True, but this is also what the FPB on a CZ does, is it not? I know that the CZ has a half-cock notch on its trigger but the shooter can by-pass this notch and lower the trigger all the way down to contact the firing pin; this will also allow the weapon to discharge if it were to be dropped on its hammer. But the thing is that many people don't see this as a major issue with the CZ pistol but with the Glock they get a little anxious; there has got to be a reason for this, but I still don't understand.

The hammer's position has nothing to do with an AD that occurs when a pistol is dropped on it's muzzle. The hammer would be resting on the frame, so it can't impart a hit to the FP. It is the firing pin's own mass inertia as the muzzle of the gun hits the ground that causes the firing pin to try to keep going and it wiill hit the primer of the chambered round.

Removing the FP plunger defeats this safety. of course, all series 70 1911 guns do not even have such a safety. My CZ-85 has no such safety, so your point is well taken that since millions of guns do not even have the safety in the first place, it's a bit hypocritical to claim that it's removal renders the gun "dangerous"..... unless one wants to claim that all those 1911's and CZ's are also dangerous.

[Flexmoney]

Cy,

Why do you keep wanting to kill off the safeties on the Glock?

Are you having trouble learning to shoot it?

[Angus Hobdell]

We have tested the guns with "no FPB" extensively. Dropping them from 2.0 meters muzzle first onto concrete and onto the hammer. Hitting the hammer with a 4 lb ball peen hammer etc, in no case have we been able to make the gun go off.

Correct, many manufacturers make firearms without FBP's Have done for years.

It is deemed ok in the 85 combat, SP01 SHadow and a plethora of 1911's and other guns.

[Bob Hostetter]

I think is question is why is it considered OK with one design of gun and not with another. I believe (I am sure I will be corrected if wrong) that USPSA say's it NOT ok to disable safeties on any gun.

And by the way the Glock will run just fine without the FPB. At least it did in the Glock I used to shoot.

[mike cyrwus]

Now I am NOT saying deactivate ANY safety plunger/device, but for the last 6 years I have never had to get down on my hands and knees to look for an extractor...open 24. KurtM

then what are you doing down there; if not looking for an extractor????

[jobob]

You guys are right, apparently. (Damn I hate that!) I played around quite a bit today with a Glock without the fpsp, and it seems to function fine without it, and it does nothing to hold the extractor in place, like I originally thought. Gee, I'm a Glock armorer, and I should have known that. Anyway, I can't really see the purpose of removing it. It does very little to improve the trigger pull.

[atmar]

I believe the firing pin safety plunger holds the extractor in position. So, I don't thnk the gun would be very functional without it.

HOLD IT! I was wrong in the above statement! Before hitting the 'add reply' button I tried it in one of my Glocks. The extrator stays put, and does, in fact, extract cartridges without the firing pin safety plunger in place. I haven't fired a gun in this condition, and I don't know how long the extractor would stay in place while actually shooting the gun. I don't think there is enough pressure supplied by the extractor plunger spring to keep it in the gun without the firing pin safety plunger. Only way to find out would be to try it.

I'll let someone else do it, though. I don't really want to be searching the range on my hands and knees looking for my lost extractor!

10k+ rounds and counting.

I can't really see the purpose of removing it.

pre-travel sir.

Edited February 28, 2008 by atmar

[Cy Soto]

Cy,

Why do you keep wanting to kill off the safeties on the Glock?

Are you having trouble learning to shoot it?

For those that may not know what Flexmoney is referring to he is talking about a previous post in which I inquired about the existence of a Glock trigger without the “safety tab”. In that case I have to admit that I find that “safety” mechanism utterly worthless. I understand that having it in place gives some people a sense of security but, in my very biased opinion, this device is nothing more than a “feel good” device for the PC crowd.

On the topic at hand, Bob H. pointed out correctly that my question has to do with why is it acceptable by some shooters to shoot alongside guns without an FPB (such as some CZs and 1911) but if they find out that the shooter next to them has disengaged the same safety mechanism on a Glock they go through the roof. And it’s true, removing the safety plunger in a Glock may not make a HUGE difference in its trigger pull but it does make a difference (however slightly) nonetheless.

[bountyhunter]

You guys are right, apparently. (Damn I hate that!) I played around quite a bit today with a Glock without the fpsp, and it seems to function fine without it, and it does nothing to hold the extractor in place, like I originally thought. Gee, I'm a Glock armorer, and I should have known that. Anyway, I can't really see the purpose of removing it. It does very little to improve the trigger pull.

In a completely stock gun, that's true. However:

When I put in the Sotelo aftermarket kit, I got lots of light strikes. Those kind of kits get a shorter pull with sharper trigger break by changing the profile of the trigger bar end. It releases the striker sooner and the FP plunger is not always 100% up (so it can impede the striker).

I recently had the same problem when I installed a new trigger bar and had to reinstall the stock plunger which has a wider bottom and increases the pull weight by about 1/2 pound. If I can use the aftermarket plunger with the more curved face, the pull is smoother and lighter.

I agree if the gun is left stock, there is no advantage to screwing with the FPB. However, it has seemed to me that every time I get a beautiful, clean breaking trigger that little sucker is going to give me light strikes because the front of the striker is bumping into it because it is not fully raised. So, it's not the removing of it that makes the big difference: it's what I can do to the trigger bar to get a shorter stroke when it's not there that makes a huge difference.

Edited February 28, 2008 by bountyhunter

[kurtm]

Mike, I am looking for Josh and Currly's XD parts, when I am down on hands and knees

[the duck of death]

I just finished a G34 open gun, using OEM parts + a upholstery tack it has a no take up 2lb trigger pull. All the safeties work. It's not hard to do while keeping the safeties. No need to remove any.

[BIG WILL]

I just finished a G34 open gun, using OEM parts + a upholstery tack it has a no take up 2lb trigger pull. All the safeties work. It's not hard to do while keeping the safeties. No need to remove any.

Did you preload the trigger to get rid of the take-up? if so, how are you keeping from depressing the safety plunger?

[Odie]

And it’s true, removing the safety plunger in a Glock may not make a HUGE difference in its trigger pull but it does make a difference (however slightly) nonetheless.

If the shooter has fundamental trigger pull issues, whatever miniscule difference in pull this modification would provide will have absolutely zero effect. Difference will be determined by hit factor, not by perception of trigger pull. From the standpoint of hit factor there will be no improvement until the basic mechanics on the part of the shooter are fixed.

[atmar]

i feel the fundamental question the poster has been asking is still not answered. this is the question.

my question has to do with why is it acceptable by some shooters to shoot alongside guns without an FPB (such as some CZs and 1911) but if they find out that the shooter next to them has disengaged the same safety mechanism on a Glock they go through the roof

would anyone care to answer?

Edited February 29, 2008 by atmar

[bigsaxdog]

went to a bill rogers class a couple of years ago, basic class, everybody has stock glock 17's. saw him shoot a weak handed "bill drill" w/one to the head maybe faster than i could do it free-style......pretty impressive....w/a "stock" trigger....ya' get my point?

[boo radley]

i feel the fundamental question the poster has been asking is still not answered. this is the question.

my question has to do with why is it acceptable by some shooters to shoot alongside guns without an FPB (such as some CZs and 1911) but if they find out that the shooter next to them has disengaged the same safety mechanism on a Glock they go through the roof

would anyone care to answer?

Sure!

The point you're missing is: differences in pistol design are less germane to any unhappy reaction than having a new shooter profess proudly to having dug around in his Glock and disabled a safety mechanism. <shrug>

[Woody Allen]

i feel the fundamental question the poster has been asking is still not answered. this is the question.

my question has to do with why is it acceptable by some shooters to shoot alongside guns without an FPB (such as some CZs and 1911) but if they find out that the shooter next to them has disengaged the same safety mechanism on a Glock they go through the roof

would anyone care to answer?

Emotional bias. A person will be usually inclined to believe something that has a positive emotional effect, that gives a pleasant feeling, even if there is evidence to the contrary, to be reluctant to accept hard facts that are unpleasant and gives mental suffering. Those factors can be either individual and self-centered, or linked to interpersonal relationship or to group influence. The effects of emotional biases. Its effects can be similar to those of a cognitive bias, it can even be considered as a subcategory of such biases. The specificity is that the cause lies in one's desires or fears, which divert the attention of the person, more than in one's reasoning. Neuroscience experiments have shown how emotions and cognition, which are present in different areas of the human brain, interfere between each other in the decision making process, resulting often on a primacy of emotions over reasoning . (Wikipedia).

Another example of emotional bias is the gun control advocates responses to any form of rational discussion. The emotions are interfering with the cognitive process.

My answer to your question, is at this point I do not see a difference.

For example, compare an Edge with the grip safety pinned/disabled (very common) after the thumb safety is disengaged with a Glock with all safeties disabled. (Issue is dropping a loaded chambered pistol during the course of fire). The first is the norm, the second has many crying for their mothers.

Why? My thought is emotional bias, and what triggers it is the concept of "removing a safety." All cognitive processes are overridden by emotion, and the subject now incapable of thinking the issue through. You would think that those involved in this sport would be immune. Another example is the issue of light triggers-you get the same responses (although not as many on this forum). They range from dangerous...not on my range...to Dave S. won the whatever with a stock trigger.... In this thread, identical responses.

Side note. Some issues that I believe trigger emotional bias to some degree (analytical thinking takes a vacation):

Disabling safeties

Light triggers

Full length guide rods on 1911s

Grip safties

Is participation in USPSA harmful, i.e., ingraining bad tactical habits that will get you killed

Gamesmanship, i.e., the whole IDPA vs. USPSA go round

Shooting lead through a stock Glock barrel

UPSA--"gaming the stage"

"New style" USPSA stages vs. "the good ole days"

Hillary Clinton

Edited February 29, 2008 by Woody Allen

[Cy Soto]

Why? My thought is emotional bias, and what triggers it is the concept of "removing a safety." All cognitive processes are overridden by emotion, and the subject now incapable of thinking the issue through. You would think that those involved in this sport would be immune. Another example is the issue of light triggers-you get the same responses (although not as many on this forum). They range from dangerous...not on my range...to Dave S. won the whatever with a stock trigger.... In this thread, identical responses.

Thank you much Woody, your answer makes a heck of a lot of sense!!