SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    The Glock gadget
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
The Glock gadget Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
What amazes me are that people do not see value in this product. I can understand someone deciding not to purchase one, but I cannot understand the shallowness of the simple minded.


The gadget acts like a hammer on a hammer fired gun. It would be useless to me if it relied solely on tactile feed back. However it helps prevents the gun from firing if properly used, just like thumbing a hammer.

Again only an idiot would throw safe gun handling techniques out the window because they purchased a gadget. Use both.



Why would it be shallow or simple minded to not want to install a non-factory fire control piece on your gun that has the potential to disable it? For some people it makes sense, for others it doesnt.

For instance, I dont do a whole lot of live fire in and out of a holster. When I do, its generally owb anyways. If I was going in and out iwb, appendix, then yeah, maybe this would make sense to me.



I'm guessing you did not pay much attention when reading my post.
 
Posts: 529 | Location: Texas | Registered: September 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
JOIN, or DIE
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
What amazes me are that people do not see value in this product. I can understand someone deciding not to purchase one, but I cannot understand the shallowness of the simple minded.


The gadget acts like a hammer on a hammer fired gun. It would be useless to me if it relied solely on tactile feed back. However it helps prevents the gun from firing if properly used, just like thumbing a hammer.

Again only an idiot would throw safe gun handling techniques out the window because they purchased a gadget. Use both.



Why would it be shallow or simple minded to not want to install a non-factory fire control piece on your gun that has the potential to disable it? For some people it makes sense, for others it doesnt.

For instance, I dont do a whole lot of live fire in and out of a holster. When I do, its generally owb anyways. If I was going in and out iwb, appendix, then yeah, maybe this would make sense to me.



I'm guessing you did not pay much attention when reading my post.


Probably about as much attention as you paid when reading mine.
 
Posts: 3576 | Registered: February 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
What amazes me are that people do not see value in this product. I can understand someone deciding not to purchase one, but I cannot understand the shallowness of the simple minded.


The gadget acts like a hammer on a hammer fired gun. It would be useless to me if it relied solely on tactile feed back. However it helps prevents the gun from firing if properly used, just like thumbing a hammer.

Again only an idiot would throw safe gun handling techniques out the window because they purchased a gadget. Use both.



Why would it be shallow or simple minded to not want to install a non-factory fire control piece on your gun that has the potential to disable it? For some people it makes sense, for others it doesnt.

For instance, I dont do a whole lot of live fire in and out of a holster. When I do, its generally owb anyways. If I was going in and out iwb, appendix, then yeah, maybe this would make sense to me.



I'm guessing you did not pay much attention when reading my post.


Probably about as much attention as you paid when reading mine.



Maybe. Where did I say it would be shallow or simple minded not to want to install it?
 
Posts: 529 | Location: Texas | Registered: September 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
JOIN, or DIE
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by TheNewbie:
What amazes me are that people do not see value in this product. I can understand someone deciding not to purchase one, but I cannot understand the shallowness of the simple minded.


The gadget acts like a hammer on a hammer fired gun. It would be useless to me if it relied solely on tactile feed back. However it helps prevents the gun from firing if properly used, just like thumbing a hammer.

Again only an idiot would throw safe gun handling techniques out the window because they purchased a gadget. Use both.



Why would it be shallow or simple minded to not want to install a non-factory fire control piece on your gun that has the potential to disable it? For some people it makes sense, for others it doesnt.

For instance, I dont do a whole lot of live fire in and out of a holster. When I do, its generally owb anyways. If I was going in and out iwb, appendix, then yeah, maybe this would make sense to me.



I'm guessing you did not pay much attention when reading my post.


Probably about as much attention as you paid when reading mine.



Maybe. Where did I say it would be shallow or simple minded not to want to install it?



What are you doing here? Playing word games? Ok, since I'm an idiot, please explain what you meant by shallow and simple-minded and which group of people that would apply to? Maybe the very same people that would not be purchasing or installing it but apparently you meant some other group.
 
Posts: 3576 | Registered: February 25, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
So, we're done, then? When we started getting acres of nested quotes so that two members can bicker, I figure that the discussion must be exhausted.

What's it going to be, gents?


____________________________________________________

"I am your retribution." - Donald Trump, speech at CPAC, March 4, 2023
 
Posts: 110026 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I looked at this device when it was first announced in a fund-raising effort, a few years ago. I had the same thoughts as everyone else: interesting, chief concern failure potential, etc. Thought I might try one, then decided to wait.

I just bought a couple, waiting on delivery of one in the field. If I'm interested, I'll usually get something to try it first hand, but before I do I'll listen to the discussion and the argument for and against, reports from others, reviewers, etc.

The impetus for me to order these was this thread, so other than the childish "if you are, then what am I," it's been a worthwhile discussion, I think. I'll report back with observations once I've had a chance to try the Gadget for a while.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of tcba_joe
posted Hide Post
I have one. It works exactly like it's intended, and it's been vetted by people a lot harder on their guns than I get to be.

No gun is perfect, and I think adding the ability to "thumb the hammer" on a Glock, like I would an issued M9 or P229 is genius.

No person is perfect, and I think adding the ability to "thumb the hammer" on a Glock, like I would an issued M9 or P229 is genius.
 
Posts: 195 | Registered: August 02, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I was a big sig da/sa fan partially because they're awesome, but a big reason as someone who carries aiwb, riding the hammer while holstering was a very big consideration. The "gadget" has completely changed my platform of carry pistols to the glock. Same exact concept, and I would be willing to bet that the gadget has been one of the most vetted devices you'll find. To be fair the 320 started my journey back to the sf guns but as fate would have it for me, I had decided to give glocks a chance early this summer due to its lighter carry. The gadget was a big deciding factor and since the 320 debacle, it's pretty much a no brainer for me.

Pretty simple really, if you think it adds a benifit to how you carry, it's a fantastic concept brought to sf pistols. If not, then fine, do your own thing.
 
Posts: 178 | Registered: May 16, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I just received the Gadget, will install tonight. This is one of two I ordered, and this is the blemished, discounted one. I can see why it's called blemished, though certainly nothing I'd lose sleep over. Slight discoloration, though its hard to tell.

The packaging foes say "Striker Control Device," and nowhere on the packaging is the word "gadget" found. It's still a gadget.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've had one on my personal G19 for as long as they've been available to the general public. I've shot the pistol A LOT since then (SWAG about 3,500 rounds), mostly on largely unimproved outdoor ranges with lots of sand and other nasty easily moving debris in the area.

I have had precisely 0 issues with operation of my Glock since I've installed the SCD. This includes when my daughter dropped my rain-soaked G19 into the beach-sand on the local PD range. Picked it up, wiped it off, went back to shooting.

I'm sure there are folks who could force debris into the opening in the SCD, but it would take some work.

For me, it's peace of mind in being able to "thumb the hammer" while I reholster - an added layer of safety. If you don't feel the need for that - cool! Move along, nothing to see. But I don't understand the vitriol targeting the concept.
 
Posts: 105 | Registered: February 11, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    The Glock gadget

© SIGforum 2024