# New Lone Wolf product...Safety Trigger for Glock.



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

Not sure if you guys seen this:










I think this will please those "external safety happy people".

I say leave it as it is. What do you guys think?


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

How is it different from the standard glock trigger - its just a metal insert in the middle instead of plastic - unless that is some sort of button on the side? Is that what that is?


----------



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

Here's the information:


> Lone Wolf Distributors introduces SIDERLOCK®, the new security trigger for use with all Glock pistols. This unique cross bolt security trigger replaces the original Glock trigger providing an infallible stop to any rearward trigger movement. SIDERLOCK® works under a simple concept: Quick, positive deployment of a cross bolt safety pin that allows simple and fast displacement in either direction. *Pushing the safety on restricts reward trigger movement. Push the safety off the trigger works as intended. Easily installed or removed, works for left*


So, it's a push button safety on the trigger that will or will not allow the trigger safety to be depressed.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Ok... 

Well, I think if someone wants to "feel" safer w/ a Glock - More power to them.

I think if Glock did sell a version w/ a manual safety (as they have installed for some agencies in Europe), they would sell a lot more. That feature IS important to some people.


----------



## TJCombo (Dec 30, 2006)

Leave it as is. Usually the folks clamoring on about the lack of external safety have not carried/lived with a Glock for any length of time. As it is, it's a very safe weapon. As long as your finger's off the trigger, the safety is on....but old habits die hard. You can look at the gun and know if it's safe-trigger depressed, or live-trigger foreward. I have and love many other handguns, but the Glock is amazing because it's so simplified and spartan. A great weapon as is. As for the "they'd sell more with an external safety" statement...I think there sales are pretty good already.


----------



## LoneWolf (Jan 2, 2007)

Well coming from someone who trained with them. I myself am not big on the "safety" for a glock. The whole reason for a glock is for combate shooting. Now in another view it might help some of thoes males who's gf's or what not has really got it out for them (More time to run kind of thing). Just a thought no offense meant.


----------



## OD GASTON (Jan 12, 2007)

That product is totally useless. If you don't want your Glock to fire keep your finger off the trigger and out on the side of the frame.


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

Glockamania® said:


> I think this will please those "external safety happy people".


That is not the kind of external safety people want. Think...1911 :mrgreen:


----------



## martial_field (Oct 16, 2006)

-gunut- said:


> That is not the kind of external safety people want. Think...1911 :mrgreen:


I agree. If u are going to have an external safety, the 1911 safety, frame mounted, large enough not to miss, slides downward to disengage (unlike the Beretta) is the way to go. H&K's offer much the same type of safety in some variations (it can also be used as a decocker or safety/decocker in some variations). If I had a Glock for a carry weapon, I would not want the functionality of the weapon hinging on disengaging the pictured type osafety. Leave well enough alone!:smt023 :smt023 :smt023


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

I would love it if Glock came with a frame mounted safety like that found in on the USP and had a 1911 angle grip angle. That would be awesome!


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

-gunut- said:


> I would love it if Glock came with a frame mounted safety like that found in on the USP and had a 1911 angle grip angle. That would be awesome!


They have made some of these to fill department orders in Europe. And, there is an aftermarket safety U can have installed too.

I know the Glock guys are protective of their gun - but if anyone suggests a frame safety, U'd swear someone just insulted their mother or something... :smt171


----------



## fattsgalore (Jan 20, 2007)

I like it but wouldn't buy it. For the sole fact you have to put your finger in the trigger guard. Thats a habit no one should be getting use to. 

And before we start arguing, Glocks have terrible safety records. Look at the New York standard Glock Trigger. It's twelves pounds. Go ahead Google Ny Glock trigger. They issued it cause when they were first issued cops(trained professionals) were shooting them selves and people on accident. 

The Military wont adopt a handgun without a safety. Look at the new pistols testing their doing. The S&W M&P in .45 which is in the test has a safety. The 9 and 40 don't. I own a Glock23 for a year and to be honest still fear chambering it.

On the flip side. That safety and a 3.5 pound trigger pull would be nasty.
Now that i think about thats actually something i might do. Screw getting another gun I'll make the Glock the one I really wanted. It's like a Honda Civic with a turbo. You laugh but I've seen Civics out run Ferrari's and at less then 10% the Ferrari cost.


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

fattsgalore said:


> I like it but wouldn't buy it. For the sole fact you have to put your finger in the trigger guard. Thats a habit no one should be getting use to.


Maybe intended for you to remove the safety when ready to shoot? It's safe if you use it in that manner right?


----------



## fattsgalore (Jan 20, 2007)

-gunut- said:


> Maybe intended for you to remove the safety when ready to shoot? It's safe if you use it in that manner right?


Quiet possibly. My big question is it deactivated all the way to the left or right with the safety is the middle position. Or vice versa

I just went to their web site and e-mailed them. I hope they e-mail me back. My opining is if it is deactivated in a middle position who the hell in a emergency situation is gonna depress the button only slightly for the middle engagement. 
I hope they e-mail me back. Every company I've ever e-mailed has never responded back.


----------



## fattsgalore (Jan 20, 2007)

it worked!!!!


----------



## Funyet (Jan 2, 2007)

Somehow an external safety that requires you to touch the trgger to activate/deactivate the safety misses the point of an external safety. I say this assuming the little button in the trigger is the safety.


----------



## Vom Kriege (May 5, 2006)

That design looks like it could activate itself and get you dead because your gun wouldn't fire.

If you'r ehung up on a positive safety, don't buy a Glock.


----------

