Good enough for me. I'll have to try one then.

So if I understand this device correctly, some BG grabbing at my gun and inadvertently holding down that doggy-door striker plate at the slide's rear can disable my once reliable handgun? Um...that doesn't seem all that good, I'm kinda figuring.

I'd like to think that my 27+ yr long streak for NOT shooting myself in the leg or foot or butt when holstering will remain intact. But I will admit that I'm getting older and perhaps there's an increasing chance I might do just that as my skills and mobility really begin the downward spiral. Conversely, I also like to believe that I would never allow a miscreant to get THAT close to me as to possibly take the use of my gun out of the game. But you know what, in this day and age I find myself convinced that I'm more likely to be surprised and jumped by said BG, ESPECIALLY now that I'm older in an ever more visible manner, so the latter doom scenario seems the more scarier thing...at least to me. And frankly, $80 or so for what seems to be a relatively simple thingamajig just seems excessive to my 'cheapness' sensibilities.

I pass, at least for now.

EDIT: That custom CZ on that pic of the American Gunner cover in the link looks awfully sweet...

Correct on a BG scenario, although I'd imagine that any hammer fired gun or gun with an external safety can be inadvertently disabled if someone grabs it.

I agree that the price is higher that I'd like it to be. My understanding is that Tom could not find a way to produce it cheaper and at the same QC point. I think that the initial plan to get a metal injection mold but then it changed to CNC which is how it is made now. I am not 100% on this though but I am certain that the price had to be raised after the initial fundraising buy.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
banned these from my department.

Another point of failure.

I would have to agree.

Based on what? The Gadget SCD has been very well vetted.

The Gadget striker control device does one thing - it allows you to "thumb check" the striker when re-holstering just like thumb checking the hammer on a revolver or hammer fired auto.

Thumb checking when re-holstering has been taught for decades with revolvers, TDA autos and DAO autos. It went away in many training orograms only because it was not possible with striker fired autos.

For those who say their finger is their safety or claim they are too "good" "smart"or "well trained" to re- holster with their finger on the trigger, consider that finger on the trigger is not the only cause of ND's when re-holstering.

I have seen the aftermath of two ND's with injury which could have been prevented by thumb checking. Neither involved a finger on the trigger.

One involved a Beretta 96D (DAO) and a thumb break getting into the trigger guard. The second involved a local LEO assigned to one of our task forces. While reholstering a P229 DAK he got the drawstring slider of his jacket caught in the trigger guard.

The gadget isn't really a failure point.

It takes the place of the back plate on the slide. The back plate has several functions, not the least of which is keeping out dirt and crud. It retains the extractor spring and rod, and it secures the firing pin assembly. Unless the gadget actually breaks free from its pivot points and leaves the weapon, there's nothing to create a failure point.

Thumb behind a hammer can prevent movement of the hammer and prevent a negligent discharge. Thumb behind a striker fired slide can not prevent a negligent discharge without a feature such as the gadget, and it can result in a badly damaged thumb if the weapon does discharge.

Gear entering the trigger guard such as a jacket drawstring or thumb break assembly is not prevented by a straight finger, but it is preventable by more careful holstering, including looking where one is putting the weapon (it's done successfully millions of times a year). No amount of safety devices will prevent all unintentional discharges.

As for an adversary disabling the pistol by taking a grip with the thumb on the rear of the slide...think about it. Really? I mean, really?

Get a blue gun and try it. Struggle as the agressor with your thumb on the rear of the slide. See what circumstances you can get it there, and when you can't. Notice anything??

Notice also that if an aggressor is close enough to grasp the weapon, he's close enough to disable it with most common safeties, too, and grasping the slide can impede velocity enough that it becomes a single shot, if its able to fire at all.

Where's that weapon pointing when his thumb is behind the slide?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
[G]rasping the slide can impede velocity enough that it becomes a single shot ….

This is one of the things I point out in my defense against active violence classes.

Anyone who believes that every unintentional discharge involving Glocks was due to the user’s trigger finger being in the wrong place simply hasn’t been paying attention, and that unobservant ignorance is in itself a safety hazard to the people who believe it. It’s not all the accidents that don’t happen that matter, it’s the few that do that matter.

I don’t know whether something like this would be possible for the SIG P320, but I’d buy one in an instant if it were available.

quote:

As for an adversary disabling the pistol by taking a grip with the thumb on the rear of the slide...think about it. Really? I mean, really?
really?

I dunno. I've never found myself in such a situation. I've also never (until now) thought up all or any possibilities that could happen in such an up-close scenario with something like the Gadget on my Glock. Up until I was made aware of this device via this thread I was blissfully unaware; the 'what ifs' thinking only started yesterday. But regardless of my imagination, what I DO know that it is possible that the operation of the firearm COULD be impeded. That can't be disputed, it's in the videos. How likely is this possibility? Who knows for sure? The way I look at it, face-to-face fights are a fluid thing; can you accurately predict what will or will not actually happen during such an encounter? I certainly can't.

But in a struggle where the attacker manages to get a jump on me and my Glock is shoved back hard into my torso and now that holstering Gadget keeps the trigger from breaking even when muzzle is in a very usable firing position...is this second scenario also one of those 'really?' situations as well? Sorry if it is; I'm merely dreaming it up as I go.

I'm still skeptical. Yes I will concede that there may exist more of a chance that some foreign or unintended object will cause a ND during holstering (yes, ND...since the dude doing the holstering could've visually or physically checked what/where their gun is going into--I've done such in the past via sticking my off-hand into my holster first to check if a shirt tail, brass or such had invaded the space), than a bad guy actually somehow disabling a gun so endowed by the Gadget while in my hand. Maybe the former is a far more likely possibility. But regardless, it's 'old dog, new tricks' for me...for now I rely on my track record in successfully holstering my Glock without incident for over 2 1/2 decades. And you know, I truly don't think that I'm living on borrowed time (so to speak) as I stick with what I've been doing. YMMV.

Some BG grabbing this Glock device and disabling the gun is equal with grabbing the cylinder of a revolver, the hammer of a hammer-fired gun, etc.. Yes, it is a consideration, but I wager that more people have had NDs with stuff getting caught in the trigger guard of Glocks than have had their revolvers or hammer-fired pistols rendered inoperative by grappling with a bad guy.

I'm still open to the Glock gadget idea.

quote:

Anyone who believes that every unintentional discharge involving Glocks was due to the user’s trigger finger being in the wrong place simply hasn’t been paying attention, and that unobservant ignorance is in itself a safety hazard to the people who believe it

I find this interesting, perhaps I will start another thread Re: this

I guess the only downside could be getting used to it on one Glock, then mishandling a Glock without one. Even then, I'd say those chances are very remote.

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:


Based on what? The Gadget SCD has been very well vetted.

Old policy. No modifications except with OEM parts or night sights and WMLs. Even internal Lasermax lasers are no longer allowed because we've experienced failures.

Think liability. In this age, people sue for everything. Think city with big pockets. Not even from the public standpoint. Officer gets killed because he modded his weapon, family's going to sue as well. The city issues the weapon, they have to keep some sort of control on what goes on it. Making sure your holster is clear before reholstering is part of training. Anything loose on jackets are cut off.

I like the concept, but dang, $79 per unit?
I could go broke outfitting weapons!

Yes, depressing it disables the weapon. That is its purpose, and the point of the design. Most safeties on firearms do, too. Think about it.

Which, again, makes this gadget a possible source of failure to fire.

quote:

Originally posted by Grayguns:
I have examined this product in some depth, and do not believe it presents an unreasonable risk for failure.

On the other hand, every ND while reholstering a striker gun which I have witnessed, investigated or looked into would have been prevented had this concept been available, and used by the shooter. Several of these incidents involved extraneous objects that worked the trigger in the holster in some way or other. The old "booger hook...bang switch...I'm highly trained..." mentality regarding safety practices is bankrupt in my view.

I'm tired of hearing about such people shooting themselves avoidably. And they do, make no mistake.

-Bruce

So Bruce, are you developing one for the P320?

Admitting that I do not know what I am talking about, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:
Admitting that I do not know what I am talking about, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Yeah, in a way, it is, as ND's happen with all firearm types.

However, I guess you'd have to see if ND's happen more with Glocks than other styles/makes/models, and if so, what the circumstances were.

Then you'd have to consider Para's point about adding another "possible source of failure to fire", which, as much as I like the gadget, I do have to agree that it does introduce one more failure point.

Finally, it seems to be a question of doing the math...Does the introduction of an additional failure point outweigh the proposed benefits given the data around ND's and their circumstances?...and then make your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Yes, depressing it disables the weapon. That is its purpose, and the point of the design. Most safeties on firearms do, too. Think about it.

Valid point. When Big Army adds a manual safety requirement on a striker fired M17, you barely hear about this being an additional failure point, a malfunction or mishandling of which can cause a failure to fire, or a solution in a search of a problem. Yet theoretical criticism should be identical in both cases.
If Glocks had a good quality, ergonomic, robust manual safety I personally wouldn't have needed a Gadget. I personally don't care how I achieve a direct and active control over a firing mechanism during admin handling, thumbing a hammer, engaging a safety and actively keeping it engaged, or pushing on a Gadget, as long as I have an option to exercise that control. But Glock's external safety options suck while Gadget doesn't. Easy call.

If they can find a market for these, and it seems they have, more power to them.

I won't be buying one.