Removing the Firing Pin Block

[bountyhunter]

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?

I saw Jerry Mikulek shoot a SW wheelgun as fast as an Uzi.

I still do trigger jobs on my SW wheelguns, because I can shoot them a lot more accurately when I have a smoother and lighter trigger..

I guess the point is that I ain't Jerry Mikulek.

[sslav]

Would this be legal in production and Limited divisions? Both divisions allow "Replacement of minor components". It can be argued that removing a minor component is replacing it with nothing. Is that the case? Otherwise this argument is moot for Production and limited divisions.

Slav

[mpolans]

Would this be legal in production and Limited divisions? Both divisions allow "Replacement of minor components". It can be argued that removing a minor component is replacing it with nothing. Is that the case? Otherwise this argument is moot for Production and limited divisions.

Slav

Definitely legal in Limited and I think could be probably be done to conform with Production rules. If "removal" doesn't count as "replacement," there's got to be a way to modify it to disable it.

[Carlos]

Note of clarification:

It is not legal under IPSC Production division rules to remove a Glock striker safety. Why? Because there has NEVER been a Glock sent from either the US or Austrian factory that had that safety removed. Therefore, it must remain in the gun to be legal.

In contrast, the one and only CZ factory in the Czech Republic has shipped SP-01s without the firing pin safety included and the lack of any firing pin safety in the gun is a recognized factory configuration that is legal at all levels of competition, including the world shoot (ask Vince on the Global Village if you don't believe me).

As Angus pointed out, the lack of that CZ firing pin safety is exactly like all the 1911s without the dreaded "series 80" safeties and it is every bit as safe as any 1911 - if not more so.

Regards,

d.

[Flexmoney]

Woody,

The emotional bias theory is nice. I use that thinking when playing poker (among other things). It often explains the "WHY" for the reasons that people do things (something that I try to understand).

I was with you...right up until you went the other way with it.

Other things I look at are risk/reward...need/want...herd mentality...can/should...etc.

[Woody Allen]

Note of clarification:

It is not legal under IPSC Production division rules to remove a Glock striker safety. Why? Because there has NEVER been a Glock sent from either the US or Austrian factory that had that safety removed. Therefore, it must remain in the gun to be legal.

In contrast, the one and only CZ factory in the Czech Republic has shipped SP-01s without the firing pin safety included and the lack of any firing pin safety in the gun is a recognized factory configuration that is legal at all levels of competition, including the world shoot (ask Vince on the Global Village if you don't believe me).

As Angus pointed out, the lack of that CZ firing pin safety is exactly like all the 1911s without the dreaded "series 80" safeties and it is every bit as safe as any 1911 - if not more so.

Regards,

d.

A little file work, it remains in the gun, an internal modification. There has also never been a Glock shipped with a non-captured guide rod. Or a trigger bar with a hole redrilled. I disagree.

[Woody Allen]

Woody,

The emotional bias theory is nice. I use that thinking when playing poker (among other things). It often explains the "WHY" for the reasons that people do things (something that I try to understand).

I was with you...right up until you went the other way with it.

Other things I look at are risk/reward...need/want...herd mentality...can/should...etc.

"other way with it." Ok I'm busted.

[atmar]

thank you very much for your answers. at first i thought it was just pure "discrimination".

It is not legal under IPSC Production division rules to remove a Glock striker safety. Why? Because there has NEVER been a Glock sent from either the US or Austrian factory that had that safety removed. Therefore, it must remain in the gun to be legal.

removing it would lower the trigger pull below the minimum 5lbs. therefore reclassifying the shooter to open class. why would i want to do that?

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>

what if it was an experienced shooter who did it?

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.

exactly my point. it is the same.

Edited March 2, 2008 by atmar

[Sandormen]

Just wish to make an input....

That in the CZ's... ...the firing pin has a firing pin-spring in front of it, pushing the pin backwards to the stop-plate, so if a CZ should AD because of no firing-pin block, it would need tremendous inertia to make it happen.

On the Glock, the striker-spring is mounted behind the striker. Without the safety-plunger, and you hold the slide with the muzzle down, You will actually see that the striker comes out of it's little hole.

I believe this is why Glock must have it's plunger in place. -because of safety-measures.

[Bill Nesbitt]

There has also never been a Glock shipped with a non-captured guide rod.

The older Glocks came with a non-captured guide rod. I have 3 of them.

[jobob]

Just wish to make an input....

That in the CZ's... ...the firing pin has a firing pin-spring in front of it, pushing the pin backwards to the stop-plate, so if a CZ should AD because of no firing-pin block, it would need tremendous inertia to make it happen.

On the Glock, the striker-spring is mounted behind the striker. Without the safety-plunger, and you hold the slide with the muzzle down, You will actually see that the striker comes out of it's little hole.

I believe this is why Glock must have it's plunger in place. -because of safety-measures.

But the firing pin is only in the forward position as you describe when the trigger is pulled. When the gun is charged, the trigger is in its forward position, the firing pin is held to the rear by the end of the trigger bar, and it cannot move forward if the gun hasn't been excessively modified. It is held in place by the drop safety and cannot move forward until the trigger is pulled. If there is a round in the chamber, the other safeties would prevent the gun from firing.

I may try removing the plunger in my open gun, since I've had occassional issues with light primer strikes.

Now, if someone suggests removing the drop safety I'll have to put my foot down!

Edited March 6, 2008 by jobob

[Sandormen]

But the firing pin is only in the forward position as you (Sandormen) describe when the trigger is pulled. When the gun is charged, the trigger is in its forward position, the firing pin is held to the rear by the end of the trigger bar, and it cannot move forward if the gun hasn't been excessively modified.

I believe this is party of the issue. When the trigger is in forward position, the spring is charged. Let's say the end of the trigger bar is well-used, or zealously over-polished, a 'minor' whack at the rear of the slide, might release the striker. Then You certainly want the plunger to be there. With the plunger, the striker will stop. (Unless the plunger has got a severe peening due to misuse. -Another issue altogether).

It is held in place by the drop safety and cannot move forward until the trigger is pulled. If there is a round in the chamber, the other safeties would prevent the gun from firing.

I'd say, due to the design of the Glock. It's safeties work together. Take one away, and You have a unsafe gun.

I may try removing the plunger in my open gun, since I've had occassional issues with light primer strikes.

I'd report You to Rangemaster, if I knew that.

[jobob]

I may try removing the plunger in my open gun, since I've had occassional issues with light primer strikes.

I'd report You to Rangemaster, if I knew that.

Be my guest! It isn't against the rules. The gun is as safe as most other open guns at a match.

I went ahead and tried it. Shot it in a GSSF indoor match, Open (Unlimited) division, today. I shot a 498/500. Not too bad, but then shot a 500/500 with a stock gun, with all safeties still intact to comply with the rules. (The latter has no relevance to this discussion. Just bragging!)

As long as there is plenty of engagement between the end of the trigger bar (sear) and the firing pin extension, I see no problem. Not for a carry gun, but for a strictly match gun - no worries.

My first reaction to this thread was a knee jerk reaction similar to yours. Then I started examining the design of the gun, and seeing how the gun would function without the plunger. The facts changed my mind. The plunger is a redundancy. My open gun fired about 200 rounds today without the firing pin safety plunger, and without a hickup. Gaston might revoke my Armorers certification if he knew I did that, but oh well!

[atmar]

I'd report You to Rangemaster, if I knew that.

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).

[Sandormen]

I'd report You to Rangemaster, if I knew that.

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).

I'd say: It's the rules. Until the rules has been changed. Follow them. No personal bias involved here.

Removing the Safety Plunger would violate rule# 5.1.6 leading to rule# 10.5.11.2 (DQ by Unsafe Gun Handling) and/or rule# 10.6.1 (DQ by Unsportsmanlike Conduct). (USPSA & IPSC rulebook).

I tested my Glock today. I exchanged the connector with a decently worn out one, took out the plunger, and reassembled the gun. I poked the connector and sear with a pin (didn't want to whack the slide with a hammer). The *click*-sound and the protruding striker made me convinced, that a gun accidently falling out of the speedholster at a match with several fellow shooters and spectators, onto tarmac, concrete, stone, whatever, needs the safetyplunger. Open match-gun or not. Sorry. I don't buy that you shoot so much better without the plunger. If that is the issue, buy a reduced power plunger-spring from wolff, or something.

Btw, Jobob. Nice results!!

edit: sorry, i wrote that I took out the connector, I meant the triggerbar!

Edited March 10, 2008 by Sandormen

[mpolans]

I'd report You to Rangemaster, if I knew that.

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).

I'd say: It's the rules. Until the rules has been changed. Follow them. No personal bias involved here.

Removing the Safety Plunger would violate rule# 5.1.6 leading to rule# 10.5.11.2 (DQ by Unsafe Gun Handling) and/or rule# 10.6.1 (DQ by Unsportsmanlike Conduct). (USPSA & IPSC rulebook).

I tested my Glock today. I exchanged the connector with a decently worn out one, took out the plunger, and reassembled the gun. I poked the connector and sear with a pin (didn't want to whack the slide with a hammer). The *click*-sound and the protruding striker made me convinced, that a gun accidently falling out of the speedholster at a match with several fellow shooters and spectators, onto tarmac, concrete, stone, whatever, needs the safetyplunger. Open match-gun or not. Sorry. I don't buy that you shoot so much better without the plunger. If that is the issue, buy a reduced power plunger-spring from wolff, or something.

Btw, Jobob. Nice results!!

edit: sorry, i wrote that I took out the connector, I meant the triggerbar!

Hmmm...so if someone were shooting their 1911 with a pinned/disabled beavertail grip safety, and I decided to use a dental pick to lever the sear to allow the hammer to fall (similar to your realistic test), you'd consider shooting the gun "unsafe gun handling" and anyone shooting it be guilty of "unsportsmanlike conduct?" There might be a mere ocean between us, but I think we're worlds apart on when comes to what we think is reasonable. If you think guns without firing pin safeties and/or functioning grip safeties are unsafe, I'm surprised you shoot IPSC. We've got tons of people shooting 1911 based guns with neither. From what I recall of shooting in Europe, they also had lots of 1911 based guns without firing pin safeties and working grip safeties. How many of them have you protested?

[Sandormen]

Hmmm...so if someone were shooting their 1911 with a pinned/disabled beavertail grip safety, and I decided to use a dental pick to lever the sear to allow the hammer to fall (similar to your realistic test), you'd consider shooting the gun "unsafe gun handling" and anyone shooting it be guilty of "unsportsmanlike conduct?" There might be a mere ocean between us, but I think we're worlds apart on when comes to what we think is reasonable. If you think guns without firing pin safeties and/or functioning grip safeties are unsafe, I'm surprised you shoot IPSC. We've got tons of people shooting 1911 based guns with neither. From what I recall of shooting in Europe, they also had lots of 1911 based guns without firing pin safeties and working grip safeties. How many of them have you protested?

Never talked about 1911/2011's and their disabled grip-safeties, but since asking... ...No, I don't compare Glocks to xx11's at all.

There is a wide difference between their design and the Glock.

I haven't protested a firingpin-safety/grip-safety-less xx11, neither will I do so. Neither will I protest a CZ-x5/clone, that is based on the principal of having a firingpin-spring INFRONT of the firingpin, and hammer that can be put down, either with the stupid unneccesary decocker-lever, or manually by the God-given thumb.

Those guns also have, in case you absolutely need to have a cocked & chambered gun, a external safety-switch. The Glock don't.

As someone disputed in an earlier post, that replacing could be interpreted as 'replacing with nothing'. I don't know if that was said with tongue-in-cheek, but I don't remember as of my writing, that I saw a smiley attatched, so I don't think it was said so... ...My anwer is No, no, no, no. 'Removing' does not equal 'Replacing'. That would also mean, by a weapon inspection, You WOULD be deemed having a unsafe weapon, hence breaking the 5.1.6 'Firearms must be serviceavle and safe'. On a good day, with a good inspector, he/she would let You off, if you say "Oops, i forgot to put it in after cleaning the gun at the hotel", and he/she would let you put the plunger back into the gun, and let you continue with your match.

HOWEVER, if you were to be taken aside during a match for a random inspection... The result could really fast turn out with red cheeks, leaving before the match with one, potentially two DQ's in the bag. The reasaon? Because the safety-plunger in a Glock CAN'T FALL OUT (read: disassemble itself by breaking, but vaporizing itself by a natural phenomena, also called miracle by some. -Then you'd be allowed to repair the gun, before continuing the match). If a Glock has been tinkered with in this way, You could very well be facing a 10.6.1 or/and a 10.5.11.2, holstering a weapon without it safety applied- Or more blatantly: Without installed safety!

Back to the differences in the design between the xx11 and Glock, if You haven't experienced both guns designs.

If you hit the backside of any gun (except Glock and some early models of 1911, by obvious reasons), on a lowered hammer, the firingpin won't have the inertia to compress its firingpin-spring (unless the spring is either worn out, or cut-off) hard enough to simultanously protrude its crack AND ignite the primer. What happens in the firingpin-channel, is that the firingpin in a xx11/cz xx, TS, etc./clones is actually loosing speed all the way to impact of the primer, whereas the design of the Glock actually the opposite happens.

In the Glock the strikerspring is positioned behind the striker (more than less), giving the spring the opposite effect, when the spring is charged, there is nothing to break the striker's speed but mere friction from the plastic liners in the striker-channel. So IF a Glock would drop, IF the Glock's sear-part of the triggerbar is overpolished/worn down, IF it was loaded, IF the safety plunger had been removed, Yeah, It might actually lead to a very disastrous AD. I wouldn't care less about protesting due to cheating, but about safety. Not neccesarily my own, but the others, including his and the spectators. If that is being emotionally biased, then F*** me, why not.

Edited a stupid grammar, there are more, but not critical

Edited March 10, 2008 by Sandormen

[atmar]

Without installed safety!

what about the drop safety?

a external safety-switch. The Glock don't.

it has internal safeties.

Edited March 10, 2008 by atmar

[Sandormen]

Without installed safety!

what about the drop safety?

a external safety-switch. The Glock don't.

it has internal safeties.

I think i'll drop the thread here. I thought I had managed to make it pretty clear why both the drop-safety, the one on the trigger, and safety plunger are relevant to each other.

I'll try one last time... ...if the safety plunger is missing, it is just about irrelevant to have the drop-safety. If the striker should be released, it will release a deadly blob of lead in whatever direction the muzzle is pointing. If the plunger is missing, it is not necessary for the drop-safety to be pressed. The function of the drop-safety is to make sure the trigger w/bar doesn't move backwards, That doesn't mean it is impossible for the triggerbar/sear to be pushed downwards by inertia inside the slide, while the drop-safety is still activated.

-Resulting in a forwardthrusting motion of the several pounds strong spring, slamming the metallic point of the striker into, and ignite a primer, that will ignite some gunpowder, that under pressure will push out a projectile that can, if you're lucky 'only' maim one person for life.

Now, if the plunger is actually in the gun, and the said possible inertia had by the hand of God or something miraculously (obviously, it has to be a miracle since this seems to be so hard to understand) released the striker on a loaded gun, without touching the trigger, disabling the dropsafety. -The ingenious craftwork of the humans would have fooled both God and Death, since the striker would ram into the safetyplunger and never reach the primer.

Yes, the Glock has internal safeties. Compare it with a car. It has safetybelts and airbags, but what good is that if You choose to disconnect the brakes?

I hope I have managed to clearify aspects around the safety of a Glock pistol.

[mpolans]

My comments in italics.

Hmmm...so if someone were shooting their 1911 with a pinned/disabled beavertail grip safety, and I decided to use a dental pick to lever the sear to allow the hammer to fall (similar to your realistic test), you'd consider shooting the gun "unsafe gun handling" and anyone shooting it be guilty of "unsportsmanlike conduct?" There might be a mere ocean between us, but I think we're worlds apart on when comes to what we think is reasonable. If you think guns without firing pin safeties and/or functioning grip safeties are unsafe, I'm surprised you shoot IPSC. We've got tons of people shooting 1911 based guns with neither. From what I recall of shooting in Europe, they also had lots of 1911 based guns without firing pin safeties and working grip safeties. How many of them have you protested?

Never talked about 1911/2011's and their disabled grip-safeties, but since asking... ...No, I don't compare Glocks to xx11's at all.

I brought them up because as soon as the thumb safety is flicked off during the draw, the Glock and the xx11 are functionally the same. In fact, the xx11 is arguably more "dangerous" since the hammer is fully cocked and if dropped in a manner that bounces the hammer hooks off the sear face, has enough force to hit the firing pin and overcome the firing pin spring. A Glock in a similar position has only a partially pre-loaded striker, the striker isn't fully cocked until the trigger is physically pulled to the rear, compressing the striker spring...in the context of highly modified guns with lightened striker springs, it's even less likely to be able to ignite a primer if the only partially pre-loaded striker were to slip off the sear surface of your trigger. To test this, I suppose you could get a Glock with a lighter striker spring and repeat the same test you performed but with a case with a primer only in the chamber.

There is a wide difference between their design and the Glock.

I haven't protested a firingpin-safety/grip-safety-less xx11, neither will I do so. Neither will I protest a CZ-x5/clone, that is based on the principal of having a firingpin-spring INFRONT of the firingpin, and hammer that can be put down, either with the stupid unneccesary decocker-lever, or manually by the God-given thumb.

Those guns also have, in case you absolutely need to have a cocked & chambered gun, a external safety-switch. The Glock don't.

The external safety is irrelevant after the draw. If xx11 is dropped at any point after the safety is flicked off, it is as "dangerous" as a Glock without a firing pin block safety, yet nobody is talking about requiring xx11s to have or retain their firing pin block safety. As discussed above, a fully cocked hammer on a xx11 has more than enough force to overcome the firing pin spring, while a only preloaded striker in a Glock might not have enough force to set off a primer.

As someone disputed in an earlier post, that replacing could be interpreted as 'replacing with nothing'. I don't know if that was said with tongue-in-cheek, but I don't remember as of my writing, that I saw a smiley attatched, so I don't think it was said so... ...My anwer is No, no, no, no. 'Removing' does not equal 'Replacing'. That would also mean, by a weapon inspection, You WOULD be deemed having a unsafe weapon, hence breaking the 5.1.6 'Firearms must be serviceavle and safe'. On a good day, with a good inspector, he/she would let You off, if you say "Oops, i forgot to put it in after cleaning the gun at the hotel", and he/she would let you put the plunger back into the gun, and let you continue with your match.

Not that I necessarily agree with you, but even if you're right, a person could modify the plunger so it wouldn't work. Stake it in place or install a set screw so it's permanently up. As an internal modification, this wouldn't be a problem and doesn't run afoul of any USPSA rule, and probably wouldn't for IPSC for Open or Standard.

HOWEVER, if you were to be taken aside during a match for a random inspection... The result could really fast turn out with red cheeks, leaving before the match with one, potentially two DQ's in the bag. The reasaon? Because the safety-plunger in a Glock CAN'T FALL OUT (read: disassemble itself by breaking, but vaporizing itself by a natural phenomena, also called miracle by some. -Then you'd be allowed to repair the gun, before continuing the match). If a Glock has been tinkered with in this way, You could very well be facing a 10.6.1 or/and a 10.5.11.2, holstering a weapon without it safety applied- Or more blatantly: Without installed safety!

I disagree that a 10.5.11.2 would apply for removing a safety as you argue. Lots of people remove their firing pin block safeties and deactivate their beavertail grip safeties on their xx11s. There's no separate rule specifically requiring a manual safety, preventing the removal/deactivation of a safety, or requiring any safety at all. In fact, many guns shot in USPSA and IPSC don't have any safeties at all. I can't even begin to understand how you rationalize an Unsportsmanlike Conduct DQ...a penalty I've only heard applied for cheating or getting into an altercation with an RO or fellow competitor.

Back to the differences in the design between the xx11 and Glock, if You haven't experienced both guns designs.

I'm very familiar with both.

If you hit the backside of any gun (except Glock and some early models of 1911, by obvious reasons), on a lowered hammer, the firingpin won't have the inertia to compress its firingpin-spring (unless the spring is either worn out, or cut-off) hard enough to simultanously protrude its crack AND ignite the primer. What happens in the firingpin-channel, is that the firingpin in a xx11/cz xx, TS, etc./clones is actually loosing speed all the way to impact of the primer, whereas the design of the Glock actually the opposite happens.

In the Glock the strikerspring is positioned behind the striker (more than less), giving the spring the opposite effect, when the spring is charged, there is nothing to break the striker's speed but mere friction from the plastic liners in the striker-channel. So IF a Glock would drop, IF the Glock's sear-part of the triggerbar is overpolished/worn down, IF it was loaded, IF the safety plunger had been removed, Yeah, It might actually lead to a very disastrous AD. I wouldn't care less about protesting due to cheating, but about safety. Not neccesarily my own, but the others, including his and the spectators. If that is being emotionally biased, then F*** me, why not.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize IPSC shooters in Denmark using xx11s started their stages with lowered hammers and furthermore, lowered their hammers while moving or any other time in the middle of stage when there is a risk they might drop their guns. Oh, they don't? You mean they run with xx11s with manual safeties off, firing pin block safety removed/disabled and a *fully cocked hammer*??? B-b-but a fully cocked hammer has enough force to drive an inertial firing pin forward with enough force to overcome the resistance of its firing pin spring! If a xx11 gun is dropped in a manner where a hammer slips off the "overpolished/worn down" sear, the gun might go off!!! How dangerous! Gosh, you shouldn't shoot those dangerous guns! Better to shoot a Glock...after all, if you drop a Glock in the middle of a stage, even if the firing pin block isn't working, the gun striker isn't fully cocked, so the gun might not even go off if the striker slips the sear surface of the trigger bar.

Edited a stupid grammar, there are more, but not critical

[Woody Allen]

I always wanted to use this quote (50 hard boiled eggs, great scene of the girl washing the car):

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Fuller quote: "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach...."

Cool Hand Luke. Strother Martin says the line.

The film was nominated for four Academy Awards.

The girl was Joy Patricia Harmon. She left acting to create Aunt Joy's Cakes in Burbank, California.

Paul Newman left acting to create terrible pasta sauce and salad dressing.

[jobob]

Now that this thread has been upgraded to movie trivia, there is nothing left to add!

[HoMiE]

Come on saftey firing pin, pop!

[atmar]

sandormen,

1911 has 3 safeties. safety grip, firing pin block and external lever safety. their drivers deactivate 2 safeties to go faster and it fine by you.

glock also has 3 safeties. their drivers also deactivate 2 to go faster and its NOT fine by you.

and you're not biased?

[Sandormen]

sandormen,

1911 has 3 safeties. safety grip, firing pin block and external lever safety. their drivers deactivate 2 safeties to go faster and it fine by you.

glock also has 3 safeties. their drivers also deactivate 2 to go faster and its NOT fine by you.

and you're not biased?

Questions already answered. if you're unsure about anyhing, re-read my previous posts. It might be hard to understand something. I won't hold it against you.

Although I disagree to your statement that shooters deactivate 2 safeties in both the xx11 and Glocks. Not many do. New shooters very often ask if they can, out of ignorance or curiosity. And I know as the pendant you are, that you would answer me back 'but they can'... ...Well, yeah, it is physically possible, I'll grant you that. And some do. The same people that do, are taking considerate risks of not only getting DQ's, but endanger fellow shooters (and others) more than neccesary.

And of course we don't run around the cof decocking the hammer between each target. When the stage is hot, all precautions has been set, just in case anything should go wrong, as it does from time to time. But you have perhaps read up the rules about LAMR (Load and make ready)? A SA/DA-action gun with hammer is supposed to have safety on when holstered. i.e. the external safety-switch of an xx11, OR THE HAMMER IS DOWN. -The Glock HAVEN'T GOT ONE!

-And now you should re-read my previous posts again, to see why I have stated the safety-plunger should stay...

Edited March 11, 2008 by Sandormen