Unless, of course, you squeeze with your whole hand, instead of just the right 3 fingers under a combat stress situation...
Squeeze cocking is a dumb idea that has gone the way of the betamax and 8-track tape.
Oh, and the whole "Glocks aren't safe!" thing is as false as the Glock 7, a porcelain gun made in Germany that costs more than you make in a month.
Firstly, your trigger finger should only be on the trigger when you are ready to destroy what you are aiming at. I do allow for the idiots that squeeze with their whole hand and with their finger on the trigger. Do you know what happens on the P7 series if you do that? I will leave you in suspense, but I will say this... in order to fire the P7 you can either squeeze the grip to #### it and THEN pull the trigger. OR you can pull the trigger AND THEN squeeze the grip. Wonder what happens when you do both at the same time?
And as to the Glock safety thing. Fact is that most firearms manufacturers have followed Herr Glock with the no safety except the safe action system philosophy. And the truth is that Glocks are indeed a safe pistol for what they were intended for. And that, in the beginning, was NOT concealed carry. They were duty weapons, carrying ON the belt with the muzzle generally and hopefully pointing at something inane, like the ground. It is highly UNrecommended to carry a Glock in a shoulder holster that points anywhere but DOWN. In fact, some of the holster manufacturers have ceased producing shoulder holsters for Glocks where they Glock points rearward. No idea why this is, but I suspect product liability issues. The Glock is rapid to draw and first shot. Faster than almost anything else that is holstered. No argument. They are sufficiently accurate in a close in gunfight. (Nowhere near as accurate as a good 1911 or that HK). And they are super reliable. No argument; after all there are only 30 odd moving parts. And last but not least, the capacity!! The Glock 17 was named the Glock 17 because it was designed to carry 17 rounds I am told. No matter. They are reliable and carry a ton of bullets. Nuff said. Last.... last... but most important. THEY ARE A DUTY CARRY GUN. That is what they were designed for (combat or LEO I care not) and as such they were meant to be carried in a holster that would point them in a safe direction for LEO's and the risk of AD or ND was considered sufficiently low to compensate for the risk taken. Simple as that.
If I had my choice I think I would rather carry a larger 1911 based handgun. With a grip safety and with a thumb safety. Slightly slower to first shot but much safer to carry, especially concealed and pointed at one's own vitals. No question. Not as reliable generally as a Glock as far as track record is concerned, but not too far off if one buys a good one and takes good care of it. I have two or three that have yet to fail me with thousands of rounds through them. (For some reason it seems to be the magazine that is the key in 1911's... buy a cheap magazine and you are toast).
I guess it is a matter of personal comfort and need. I have come to agree that there is only one way to carry for most situations and that is with one in the tube. I cannot bring myself to do that with a concealed Glock. WITHOUT one in the tube? NO PROBLEM. It is as safe as anything on the market. With one in the tube? By definition, a Glock with one in the chamber is cocked, although you will be led to believe that it is only PARTIALLY cocked and therefore safe as safe can be. Nonsense. You are a 3 pound pull away from bang. Period. I would much prefer that TWO actions be necessary for bang. ANY two actions. But at least two actions. Make them the easiest two actions possible and you have my business, regardless of cost, as I am betting my life on it. And I would rather not pay for that bet by shooting off the family jewels or taking one in the femoral artery while driving when I spill hot coffee and yank on my shirt which is stuck in my holster.... well, you get the picture. As they say in the printing business, sheets happen.
Sorry to ramble on. As you can tell, I feel very VERy strongly about gun safety. It is the AD's and ND's that are one of the serious threats to our gun rights and freedoms; the least we can do as gun owners is to ensure that we don't tempt the dragon.
Keep safe out there.
Oh. And one last thing. Rapid first response. First shot. Accuracy. It can mean the difference between life and death. Or it can be meaningless. I have had both situations in the past three or four years. But having had both situations and having had the time to ponder the outcomes I would have to say that (A) I was very very very lucky in both situations as I never had to discharge my weapon; and , (B) if I have a choice of weapons, it is going to have to be a weapon that is with one in the tube and ready to go AND safe as safe can be. My second threat that warranted a lethal force response was with me sitting in my car and my weapon sitting over my groin aimed at my jewels and femoral artery. Talk about sweating bullets! And a stress response! Had I drawn that weapon in response I likely would not have been successful and would have taken one right in the nose; secondly, had I been successful in drawing the weapon I likely would have shot myself in the groin in the process of getting it drawn. Gut feeling. All the things they talk about in training had already set in. Tunnel vision. Auditory exclusion. Tactile dysfunction (your fingers feel like baseball bats) and so on. I would have been very lucky indeed just to get the darned thing drawn. Woooops. Sorry. I didn't even have a gun on me at the time, come to think of it. What I did instead was simply floored it. Pedal to the metal. And ducked. And the BG was so shocked that he didn't bother opening up on us. THAT my friend was the point in my life that I decided that I was going to have to defend myself and my family and do it intelligently and with great research and with training. The training part is true and the reponse is true BTW. And I know I probably would not have had any further children if I had even managed to get my weapon drawn.
With the HK P7M8 at least I would not have shot myself. I am very sad to see them discontinue the gun. Big mistake for HK. They would have been much better off to set themselves aside by re-engineering using alloys and plastics but keeping the squeeze cocker concept to set themselves apart. Drop the price. Increase the volume. Make some serious money. They made a sad and a bad mistake. Now they are just one of many and will continue to struggle with everyone else.
If I had some serious money I would take the squeeze cocker concept and run with it; if I am not mistaken the patents either have or are about to run out on the concept. I would not be surprised to see someone else come up with a squeeze cocker of some sort.
In the meantime, it will be either the P7 or a wee 1911 for me. Glocks too. I love my Glocks, but not aimed at my crotch. Some may have less to protect.
ONE OTHER THING... I have got to get this in. The P7 and some of the striker fired pistols have something that in my mind is very important; and that is double strike ability. The only way to clear a dud round in a Glock is to rack the slide. No second chance at hitting the primer. The P7 permits you to hit that round as many times as you wish with one hand. And as long as you can rack the slide back sufficiently for the round to fall out of the gun, you can squeeze and shoot again with one hand. Not so with most other guns. Think about that scenario for a while and you begin to see why I have an affinity for the P7 and other striker fired or LDA pistols that have this ability. Man... I have dreamed through scenarios galore and pistols galore over the past months and believe me when I say that my decision as to what I am going to carry concealed and bet my life on did not come lightly.
