Removing Glock Firing Pin Safety

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dsiwy said:
I hate to say it but your money would be better served on ammo or a AA Glock kit.

The best Glock mod is learning how to shoot
Click to expand...

And I have been.

With the amount of money I've spend on ammo going through this G17 in the past six months I could have bought a very nice AR15, nice tactical shotgun and a nice 1911; all for the same price.

I could be that dude with all the nice toys everybody talks about yet I decided to forgo that as I am of the mindset that it's better to have a #### gun and shoot it like a pro then five awesome guns and barely able to hit a decent group.


As for what Onagoth said. I'm sure that 9/10 times those mods are fine. If I was building a race gun I definitively would look into all of that. This is my "go to piece" however.

You could take a Glock pistol and fire 100, 000 rounds through it without any major failures. It's a more then working almost perfect design.

What gives aftermarket a bad taste to me is every time I read something on Glocktalk. You got this forum where people experiment with all sorts of things and almost every time there is an issue it's because somebody injected something that the gun/design didn't originally have.

If I came off like an arse about it, my bad. I'm just hypothesizing here, about the removal of the firing pin safety and how it effects the trigger. A broken titanium plunger, weak spring that will cause it to get stuck are all things that can lead to failure but can improve the trigger. With the plunger out all together, you get the best of both worlds.

I will give it a try the next range session, then I'll give that 25 cent trigger job a try too and re-install the plunger.
 
Mini...I'm not sure where you are getting this 'aftermarket' concept from. For a while, I was running the vogel "aftermarket' trigger for my Glock 17....this is what it is

Smooth Trigger w/ Trigger Bar / OEM / Modified & polished
Trigger Housing w/ Ejector / OEM / Modified & polished (adjustable over-travel)
3.5 lb. Connector / OEM polished
Firing Pin Safety Plunger / OEM polished
Trigger Spring / OEM polished
 
Screw it, I'm removing my firing pin safety too.

OP, I'm with you.

I refuse to listen to any arguments from two of the very few SME's on this board. WP and Slavex are wasting their time.

TDC may be able to get through to me, but only if he posts a video of himself shooting a 1911.
 
Meh, it's real hard to say if the striker pin has enough energy to ignite a primer if it somehow broke from its rest position.

You would have to test this either by removing the slide/barrel, retracting the FP to the rest position and releasing it on an unfired primer. Or knowing exactly what the mean minimum psi/velocity is required to ignite a particular primer, weighing the FP, spring, measuring the springs rate and it's adjusted length, then do some math, predict some friction interference and see what the numbers tell you.

If the end results are that if it is indeed possible for this pistol to fire from a rest position....if this is a shooting from the line pistol, I would have no issues standing beside a shooter who has ommited the block, driving to work or showering is more dangerous, however I would not recommend it for action shooting.
 
Clobbersauras said:
Screw it, I'm removing my firing pin safety too.

OP, I'm with you.

I refuse to listen to any arguments from two of the very few SME's on this board. WP and Slavex are wasting their time.

TDC may be able to get through to me, but only if he posts a video of himself shooting a 1911.
Click to expand...

Everyone has simply said "It's a bad idea" or that I should focus more on shooting then doing X, Y & Z mod.

Not a single person has really explained why it is such a bad idea and how it makes the gun any less safer in reality.

All I'm doing here is challenging status quo and pondering the idea of experimenting with new things. Apparently you can't do that here. You can't look at something objectively. To some, if it isn't Glock or (insert whatever manufacture) force feed koolaid it's wrong, bad or whatever.
 
I am sure that you have gotten flack for thinking that firing pin safety is not required; safety is there for a reason. If you wish to be accidentally shot or killed by your own gun when you drop it, be my guest, but other people may get hurt or killed by your stupidity. Think about that. Not going to go farther than this.


mini15 said:
Is it really that bad? The firing spin safety as in the one that rides bellow the extractor. While cleaning my pistol today I found that you could remove it and the gun functions fine without it. It makes the trigger a lot lighter and smoother/crisper too. Didn't need to introduce any aftermarket non OEM stuff either.

Some will consider this as blasphemy or horribly unsafe but if you think about it, there is still another safety to fall back on and other designs of guns e.g. 1911 series 70, never had this feature and people have carried these types of weapons as service guns without issue.
Click to expand...
 
If this particular safety feature is deleted, what is left? The little paddle in the trigger? I am asking because I am not all that familiar with the Glock mechanism.
Strikes me that the manufacturer thought it was important enough to incorporate it into the design.

Such a modification would prevent the pistol from being used in any IPSC sponsored event, would it not?
 
Attended range day today with local PD, talked about this thread. Guns came out and we tested this (among other things we talked about, but can't tell you nyah nyah). Trigger does not feel any different with a NY1 spring, split decision on whether or not it could fire if the striker released due to a fall.
Final comments from 3 Glock armorers, idiotic to do and will leave a person open to liability if an injury occurs because of it. Take that for what you will
 
Slavex said:
Attended range day today with local PD, talked about this thread. Guns came out and we tested this (among other things we talked about, but can't tell you nyah nyah). Trigger does not feel any different with a NY1 spring, split decision on whether or not it could fire if the striker released due to a fall.
Final comments from 3 Glock armorers, idiotic to do and will leave a person open to liability if an injury occurs because of it. Take that for what you will
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. What benefit does it have by removing it anyways? Little to none.
 
mini15 said:
Everyone has simply said "It's a bad idea" or that I should focus more on shooting then doing X, Y & Z mod.

Not a single person has really explained why it is such a bad idea and how it makes the gun any less safer in reality.

All I'm doing here is challenging status quo and pondering the idea of experimenting with new things. Apparently you can't do that here. You can't look at something objectively. To some, if it isn't Glock or (insert whatever manufacture) force feed koolaid it's wrong, bad or whatever.
Click to expand...

Everyone is not just saying it's "a bad idea".

I think "dumb", "idiotic", "stupid", and "irrelevant" were used as well.
 
mini15 said:
All I'm doing here is challenging status quo...
Click to expand...

So that's what you're doing....

Yup. I'll say it again. You need your own sub-forum. The entertainment value would be through the roof.

And yes, I already know I'm bringing nothing of real value to your thread. I agree with the other knowledgeable shooters that have already said its a bad/stupid/dumb (pick which ever you like) thing to do.
 
Your comparison to the 1911 FP safety isn't a good one. A 1911 has both a manual and grip safety as well as the FP safety in the 80 series. So with the 1911 the FP is one more automatic safety in addition to the grip safety. The key point in discussions over the 70 vs 80 series is based on the idea that the grip safety makes the FP block redundant. But that's only because the guns already have a drop safety aspect provided by the grip safety.

But in your case the safety that you want to remove is the ONLY safety preventing a possible discharge in the event of a dropped gun. The little two piece trigger doesn't count in this case since that's only there to prevent the trigger from traveling without a finger on it.

If you only stand and shoot at a bench then fine, it really should never be a problem. But if you're involved in any of the action shooting events where you draw and run around the risk of dropping the gun rises significantly.
 
BCRider said:
Your comparison to the 1911 FP safety isn't a good one. A 1911 has both a manual and grip safety as well as the FP safety in the 80 series. So with the 1911 the FP is one more automatic safety in addition to the grip safety. The key point in discussions over the 70 vs 80 series is based on the idea that the grip safety makes the FP block redundant. But that's only because the guns already have a drop safety aspect provided by the grip safety.

But in your case the safety that you want to remove is the ONLY safety preventing a possible discharge in the event of a dropped gun. The little two piece trigger doesn't count in this case since that's only there to prevent the trigger from traveling without a finger on it.

If you only stand and shoot at a bench then fine, it really should never be a problem. But if you're involved in any of the action shooting events where you draw and run around the risk of dropping the gun rises significantly.
Click to expand...


Now this is someone who actually took the time to think things through.

Your right, any kind of holster drawing or running around. It's a bad idea, I've thought things through and understand that. I wouldn't run this setup when I take part in ODPL matches.

I'm gonna bench it in it's current format and see if the lack of this feature results in exponential improvements. I'm just tinkering around here.

If I find that the improvement is day and night, well if I could get my hands on a Tasmania OEM Glock Manual safety (yes it does exist) then how unsafe would it be if the gun now has a manual safety?


Yea I said it, remove the FP block and add a manual safety, two things which should never been spoken of when talking about Glock.
 
ok, lets talk about this properly. A 1911, or any other hammer fired gun has a spring that is used to pull the firing back after it's been struck by the hammer, it is also there to prevent the firing pin from moving due to inertia due to dropping and slide movement. The introduction of the firing pin safety, was just an attempt at making this "more" safe. Whether it did or not is not part of this discussion. With a Glock the only things stopping the striker from going forward are the firing pin safety and the sear (whatever Glock calls it). remove the firing pin safety and all you have left is the sear. This is totally different than the 1911 and other pistols. If your engagement area for the sear and striker is too little (and I saw examples of such yesterday, and the guns were not tuned guns either), you now have a gun that could fire on it's own after the first shot. This is a huge liability as well an obvious safety issue.
Were you shooting on my range and I knew you had done this to the pistol, you'd be banned.
 
Uhm, striker fired guns universally have FP blocks.

you can change the shape of it to reduce the drag/trigger pull weight - but removing it is complete assclownery.
 
As an FYI, I'm not up on Canadian Civil law like I once used to be, but in the US, you may find that the manufacturer would sue you over an issue due to damage to their reputation...

Glock has just a few lawyers on staff, so it would not be at increased cost to them.

Study the gun, take an armorer's class, and for everyone sake, put the thing back in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom