...

[crud]

...

[ZombieTactics]

You've got the notion partly right. It's not that "the trigger safety on my gun won't allow me to pull the trigger, unless I pull the trigger", but rather "the trigger safety prevents the trigger from being pulled unless someone intentionally pulls it." It's pretty effective in preventing all sorts of situations where something other than a finger might find its way inside the trigger guard.

[daybreak]

I'm with the OP.

I don't understand how something can actuate a trigger that would have otherwise been prevented by a trigger safety.

The trigger safety covers the whole trigger pretty much, and feels invisible to the finger.

[MudCamper]

I also think that trigger safeties make no sense, so I did some google searches. One theory I read was interesting. If while reholstering, the cloth of your shirt gets caught on the trigger, it won't fire because it doesn't apply force to the middle of the trigger like your finger does. It tugs on the tip of the trigger.

I should test this. It seems like it could go either way, but I guess it's some measure of added safety...

[daybreak]

I also think that trigger safeties make no sense, so I did some google searches. One theory I read was interesting. If while reholstering, the cloth of your shirt gets caught on the trigger, it won't fire because it doesn't apply force to the middle of the trigger like your finger does. It tugs on the tip of the trigger.

I should test this. It seems like it could go either way, but I guess it's some measure of added safety...

Interesting. I would think a hinged trigger like on an M&P wouldn't do as well as a glock or XD trigger safety in that instance.

[Tiberius]

A while back some guy posted about shooting himself in either the pants leg, or the leg, when shifting around in his seat at a drive-through (or something like that). The gun, iirc, was a Glock, and the leather holster had deformed a bit, so that a piece of the holster got into the trigger guard and . . . bang.

So I don't get the "only a finger intentionally pulling the trigger can pull the trigger" angle. Anything that gets in there, obviously, whether pencil, coin, shirt tail, or finger, can pull it. A safety on the trigger does make some sense in regard to being drop safe, maybe.

[OutlawStar]

I have a savage with an accutrigger that is essentially a 2 stage trigger and also acts as a trigger safety. It was unintentionally used when I was out hiking New Mexico and fell using the butt of the rifle uphill to brace myself. The safety worked as designed and dropped the hammer without discharging a round forcing me to work the bolt before I could shoot. (even with the traditional thumb safety engaged) Makes sense for a hiker to prevent shooting myself or a fellow hiker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXNKD9A-vXo start about about 0:45 for a visual example.

I assume other trigger safeties (like those on glocks) are for similar purpose as police run, fall on, drop, and in other ways may cause the safety to engage. Doesn't glock tout something like 6 internal safeties anyway? Would glock have trouble selling a gun with no external safeties? I think so.

I do agree with you that if a pen in your pocket, or material presses on the trigger and the trigger safety the gun will still go off as an accidental discharge. Its why I am partial to XD or 1911 grip safeties which do not get in the way, have a very low chance of failure, and have another level of safety when carrying.

[Bug Splat]

I don't get them either. If something is ridged enough to pull the trigger its going to de-activate the safety anyway. Maybe it makes the lawyers happy but I find no benefit in them.

[Bug Splat]

Hey I got a what-if.....

What if the safety plunger was behind the trigger? There is a hole in the upper portion of the trigger, as you pull the trigger the plunger comes through the trigger hole and make contact with your finger deactivating the the safety and allowing the gun to fire. The plunger would be high enough and small enough to not fire off of a snag.

[UserM4]

It's just to minimize unintentional discharge by an object brushing against the trigger's edge. HK does this by flaring and enlarging the trigger guard towards the grip so that an object can be pushed away from the trigger.

[atilla457]

I'm a newbie on guns but I boiled down the safeties into two categories:

1) without the trigger being pulled physically, prevent gun from firing.
2) prevent an accidental / unintentional trigger pull.

#1 is for cases like dropping the gun or running with it.

#2 confirms you actually want to pull the trigger (finger or something else pulling it).

As a newbie, I need the second safety for myself and my kids. Of course, the drawback is one more thing to do before firing the gun.

[9mmepiphany]

You guys are over thinking this. Glock originally included the safety on the trigger face to meet the Austrian military requirement that the submission have a manually activated safety...the specs didn't say it had to be separate from the trigger. He made it to meet the specs. It isn't much different than the 1911, the original submission from Browning didn't include a thumb safety as the guns were designed to be carried by the US Calvary with the hammer down on an empty chamber

[scarville]

You guys are over thinking this.

Military equipment is purposely designed to be as simple to operate as possible.

[TwoAsoapbox]

A while back some guy posted about shooting himself in either the pants leg, or the leg, when shifting around in his seat at a drive-through (or something like that). The gun, iirc, was a Glock, and the leather holster had deformed a bit, so that a piece of the holster got into the trigger guard and . . . bang.

So I don't get the "only a finger intentionally pulling the trigger can pull the trigger" angle. Anything that gets in there, obviously, whether pencil, coin, shirt tail, or finger, can pull it. A safety on the trigger does make some sense in regard to being drop safe, maybe.

Simple solution, get a quality holster and us it.

[Tiberius]

The guy whose holster fired his Glock was using a Galco or similarly reputable brand. The Calguns consensus was that he should have noticed the holster deforming. Then again, maybe that was the first time it happened.

The only moral of the story I can find is this: with any weapon you have to constantly be 100% careful. When carrying a Glock-style weapon, especially IWB where contact with shirt-tails or whatever is more possible, you have to be 110% careful. I realize the math doesn't make sense, but maybe there's a reality there. I heard Hickok45 in a youtube vid describe a chambered Glock as a "real rattlesnake" (he's a Glock fan btw) and he's right - the things that make Glocks great, the light short trigger pull and simplicity are what can cause a problem. And please - let's just say no to another Glock/anti Glock thread. Every weapon has advantages and disadvantages. Glocks are fine weapons. Now put down the flaming torches and back away from the castle . . .