Have you read the article? The difference is how Glocks can easily adapted to fire full auto with an accessory.
Can others be adapted to full auto? Probably. But the adapters aren’t as easilyinstalled and commonly available.
By being a super popular gun for the reasons you mention and by being a relatively simple gun certainly helped it become the host of choice for such a modification.
One model of Glock being full auto from the factory probably set the blueprint for the illegal mod.
Have you ever heard of a Shoestring Machine gun? A little creativity goes a long ways and a Glock is nothing special aside from being an excellent self defense weapon.
AR 15 drop in auto sear using an index card as in you fold a piece of paper a certain way and put it in your rifle it will cause it to shoot full auto. You don’t really want full auto anyway, just wasting ammo really.
Then the throw in some weaseling : turning up increasingly, police think it was used this one time, this anti-gun commission says. Spraying bullets.
Glock has a reputation for quality, they’re cheap and reliable, not having a safety adds nuance of danger for those idolizing them.
I’m sure there are some people using full auto Glocks, but they’re extremely rare. It’s not this new impending threat. They could have easily done the article detailing the full auto device or given real numbers of use. They’re in it for the clicks.
Glocks have three separate safety devices, but they do not have a toggleable safety switch on the outside of the gun, commonly referred to as a “thumb safety”.
You will not be able to make a Glock fire unless you put your finger in the trigger and pull it. They are 100% drop-safe, meaning even if you have the gun loaded and it falls off a table, etc., it will not fire a round (unlike guns in the movies).
This makes Glocks a very appealing self-defense handgun. In a real self-defense shooting scenario, it is unlikely that you will have the time or dexterity to disengage the thumb safety before firing. Assuming you remember to do it at all.
There’s something called the rule of threes in self defense shootings: most encounters happen at 3 yards, last 3 seconds, and 3 rounds are fired. If someone is sprinting at you from 9 feet away, the extra split second of fumbling around with the gun to turn the safety off could make a big difference. Concealed carry instructors will commonly tell students to submerge their hands in a bowl of ice water for a full minute, then attempt to handle their (unloaded) gun and operate the action and thumb safety. It’s nearly impossible. That’s the amount of dexterity you will have in an actual life threatening situation due to the sudden rush of adrenaline.
When carrying a handgun for self defense, we use other factors to mitigate a negligent discharge. For example, your holster must completely cover the trigger when the gun is seated so it cannot be fired when holstered.
I carry a Glock daily for self defense and have never had an issue with the lack of a thumb safety, because I follow the rules of gun safety very strictly.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don’t have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
And the same goes for DA/SA or SA-only automatics. Most tend to have manual safeties, some have de-cockers only or can be transformed to that configuration.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
Just the trigger. A safety in the “handle” would be a grip safety, which some guns have but not Glocks (unless it is some obscure small run model, but certainly none of the common ones). It looks like an extra panel on the back of the grip which is squeezed into the grip when held.
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
They’ve tried that. Take a coin, call a side, and flip it. Did you get it right? Gun shoots. Did you get it wrong? The other guy shoots and you die. That’s how accurate the biometric safety is.
Also, on a device that is under extreme vibration and shock loads when used, this equipment will have issues and fail at the worst time. Guns are effective because they are drop dead simple in design.
It’s a thing, and has been since the late 90’s (I think). Reliability is the main issue. The first one I had heard of had mechanical reliability problems If I remember correctly.
Haven’t looked at Biofires products lately, but they weren’t really weatherproof last I heard and weren’t recommended for duty use as a result. And then there is the eye watering sticker price. A Taurus PT92 is less than half the price of the Biofire, and has a track record for good reliability.
I seem to remember a state, New Jersey, I think, had a law on the books saying that if multiple manufacturers came out with biometricly locked firearms that biometric locks would then become mandatory. As for if that would help things, probably not.
There’s definitely a lot of fear mongering and ignorance about firearms out there but full auto most definitely increases lethality both in terms of a single target and in terms of hitting unintended bystanders.
You say that life isn’t a movie. Then you say that people who need full auto have a “skill issue”? Christ dude, life isn’t CSGO either. You’re right that many shooters probably aren’t that skilled, but the takeaway here is that makes full auto more lethal in their hands, not that they need to git gud.
Nah you ain’t understanding, maybe if Americans had to be trained before they are given a firearm. You know like before they get to drive a car or fly a plane. But your wrong, lethal is binary you either are dead or not dead. You are never more dead than dead. Try to argue with logic and not your heart homie. If a gun has 30 bullets the maximum amount of lethality is 30. Full auto or not. It doesn’t get more dangerous because you are a bad shot. There is not multi round bonus lol.
The point of full auto is to improve hit probability, not increase lethality. There absolutely is a multiround bonus, and 3rnd burst has been used by every major military for this exact reason.
Oooo, trying to spin this so you don’t take a hit in the ol’ ego? Good luck with that. Though there is something delecious about someone who clearly doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about being this confident while being so very, very wrong. Its like some kind of delightful tonic for the soul…
If you want to cause maximum carnage yes have a full auto Glock to spray into a crowd will be very effective towards your goal. You keep talking like these are one on one scenarios. Yeah you’re right full auto is useless one on one. But think about the other scenarios.
It is surprisingly difficult to make any handgun fire full auto controllably.
Not the Glock, the irony is that their safety mechanisms provide a brilliant exploit for full auto conversion. No other striker fired handgun is anywhere near as easy. The 18C was in no way a guide for conversion because the mechanisms of operation are entirely different and far more complex, the conversions are brilliant in their simplicity.
The second easiest one is the 1911, but you need to modify the frame and slide and make some fairly precise parts that have to be hand fitted to each gun. You can make a 1911 uncontrolled full auto, as some find out by accident when they modify the gun for legal reasons.
Glocks are, and were already, very popular guns. This means that accessories manufacturers will target their devices at these guns, so they target as large of a market as possible. Thus, more manufacturers are wanting to produce automatic adapting devices for Glocks than other guns.
Yes. You can make pretty much any semiautomatic pistol (or reciprocating rifle) full auto with a fucking shoestring. There are other mods for other guns that are not even remotely complicated. I won’t get into any specifics for the sake of public safety but Glocks are not very unique, they’re super common which is why parts and mods are so abundant.
semiautomatic pistol full auto with a fucking shoestring.
The shoestring machinegun that got the ATF letter was a Mini-14 (which importantly had an exposed reciprocating charging handle) if I recall correctly, and it was still very janky. I’m trying to figure out the engineering of the same concept with a Glock with just a string and I am having some trouble.
Have you read the article? The difference is how Glocks can easily adapted to fire full auto with an accessory.
Can others be adapted to full auto? Probably. But the adapters aren’t as easilyinstalled and commonly available.
By being a super popular gun for the reasons you mention and by being a relatively simple gun certainly helped it become the host of choice for such a modification.
One model of Glock being full auto from the factory probably set the blueprint for the illegal mod.
Have you ever heard of a Shoestring Machine gun? A little creativity goes a long ways and a Glock is nothing special aside from being an excellent self defense weapon.
AR 15 drop in auto sear using an index card as in you fold a piece of paper a certain way and put it in your rifle it will cause it to shoot full auto. You don’t really want full auto anyway, just wasting ammo really.
There’s a big difference between want and need. Full auto is very fun, but impractical
Guess what the most popular and easily available mods are for cars? The ones for the most popular cheap and reliable cars!
I did. It’s a bit clickbaity.
Yes Glock is a super popular gun.
Yes it’s possible to make them full auto.
Then the throw in some weaseling : turning up increasingly, police think it was used this one time, this anti-gun commission says. Spraying bullets.
Glock has a reputation for quality, they’re cheap and reliable, not having a safety adds nuance of danger for those idolizing them.
I’m sure there are some people using full auto Glocks, but they’re extremely rare. It’s not this new impending threat. They could have easily done the article detailing the full auto device or given real numbers of use. They’re in it for the clicks.
no safety? i assumed all guns legally had to include a safety lock.
Glocks have three separate safety devices, but they do not have a toggleable safety switch on the outside of the gun, commonly referred to as a “thumb safety”.
You will not be able to make a Glock fire unless you put your finger in the trigger and pull it. They are 100% drop-safe, meaning even if you have the gun loaded and it falls off a table, etc., it will not fire a round (unlike guns in the movies).
This makes Glocks a very appealing self-defense handgun. In a real self-defense shooting scenario, it is unlikely that you will have the time or dexterity to disengage the thumb safety before firing. Assuming you remember to do it at all.
There’s something called the rule of threes in self defense shootings: most encounters happen at 3 yards, last 3 seconds, and 3 rounds are fired. If someone is sprinting at you from 9 feet away, the extra split second of fumbling around with the gun to turn the safety off could make a big difference. Concealed carry instructors will commonly tell students to submerge their hands in a bowl of ice water for a full minute, then attempt to handle their (unloaded) gun and operate the action and thumb safety. It’s nearly impossible. That’s the amount of dexterity you will have in an actual life threatening situation due to the sudden rush of adrenaline.
When carrying a handgun for self defense, we use other factors to mitigate a negligent discharge. For example, your holster must completely cover the trigger when the gun is seated so it cannot be fired when holstered.
I carry a Glock daily for self defense and have never had an issue with the lack of a thumb safety, because I follow the rules of gun safety very strictly.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
I’ll just add most (all?) revolvers have no manual safety other than a heavier and long double action pull on the trigger.
Just a reminder that single action revolvers still exist and don’t have the heavier pull. They also don’t have manual safeties, as far as I’m aware.
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don’t have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
And the same goes for DA/SA or SA-only automatics. Most tend to have manual safeties, some have de-cockers only or can be transformed to that configuration.
The safety is integrated into the trigger, so if you keep your finger off the trigger then the gun is supposedly in safety mode.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
The recent Sig P 320 chosen by the US Army has variants with no manual safety and doesn’t have the trigger safety.
It still has internal safeties but there have been issues with accidental discharges with the earlier productions.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
Just the trigger. A safety in the “handle” would be a grip safety, which some guns have but not Glocks (unless it is some obscure small run model, but certainly none of the common ones). It looks like an extra panel on the back of the grip which is squeezed into the grip when held.
thanks for the good responses. i wonder if every gun had fingerprint sensor locks, would that help fix things? or just take away our rights?
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
They’ve tried that. Take a coin, call a side, and flip it. Did you get it right? Gun shoots. Did you get it wrong? The other guy shoots and you die. That’s how accurate the biometric safety is.
Also, on a device that is under extreme vibration and shock loads when used, this equipment will have issues and fail at the worst time. Guns are effective because they are drop dead simple in design.
https://smartgun.com/
It’s a thing, and has been since the late 90’s (I think). Reliability is the main issue. The first one I had heard of had mechanical reliability problems If I remember correctly.
Haven’t looked at Biofires products lately, but they weren’t really weatherproof last I heard and weren’t recommended for duty use as a result. And then there is the eye watering sticker price. A Taurus PT92 is less than half the price of the Biofire, and has a track record for good reliability.
I seem to remember a state, New Jersey, I think, had a law on the books saying that if multiple manufacturers came out with biometricly locked firearms that biometric locks would then become mandatory. As for if that would help things, probably not.
Who cares “full auto” neither increases the lethality or capacity for criminal activity of a firearm.
There’s definitely a lot of fear mongering and ignorance about firearms out there but full auto most definitely increases lethality both in terms of a single target and in terms of hitting unintended bystanders.
That’s a skill issue. One bullet one dead is the goal. Real life isn’t John wick. Your just as dead if done properly.
You say that life isn’t a movie. Then you say that people who need full auto have a “skill issue”? Christ dude, life isn’t CSGO either. You’re right that many shooters probably aren’t that skilled, but the takeaway here is that makes full auto more lethal in their hands, not that they need to git gud.
Nah you ain’t understanding, maybe if Americans had to be trained before they are given a firearm. You know like before they get to drive a car or fly a plane. But your wrong, lethal is binary you either are dead or not dead. You are never more dead than dead. Try to argue with logic and not your heart homie. If a gun has 30 bullets the maximum amount of lethality is 30. Full auto or not. It doesn’t get more dangerous because you are a bad shot. There is not multi round bonus lol.
The point of full auto is to improve hit probability, not increase lethality. There absolutely is a multiround bonus, and 3rnd burst has been used by every major military for this exact reason.
Removed by mod
Oooo, trying to spin this so you don’t take a hit in the ol’ ego? Good luck with that. Though there is something delecious about someone who clearly doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about being this confident while being so very, very wrong. Its like some kind of delightful tonic for the soul…
Troll harder?
If you want to cause maximum carnage yes have a full auto Glock to spray into a crowd will be very effective towards your goal. You keep talking like these are one on one scenarios. Yeah you’re right full auto is useless one on one. But think about the other scenarios.
Bro if your body is mangled are you any less or more dead?
Usually less
How can you be less dead?
It’s right there in the question you thought was a brilliant hypothetical.
It is surprisingly difficult to make any handgun fire full auto controllably.
Not the Glock, the irony is that their safety mechanisms provide a brilliant exploit for full auto conversion. No other striker fired handgun is anywhere near as easy. The 18C was in no way a guide for conversion because the mechanisms of operation are entirely different and far more complex, the conversions are brilliant in their simplicity.
The second easiest one is the 1911, but you need to modify the frame and slide and make some fairly precise parts that have to be hand fitted to each gun. You can make a 1911 uncontrolled full auto, as some find out by accident when they modify the gun for legal reasons.
It’s a bit chicken and the egg. It’s a super popular handgun so therefore the accessories get made for it.
If another gun was as popular, you’d likely see the people who made this accessory make one for that gun instead.
On one hand you’re correct if Glocks magically disappeared, but you can’t discount the built-in trigger safety on the Glock making it easier.
Glocks are, and were already, very popular guns. This means that accessories manufacturers will target their devices at these guns, so they target as large of a market as possible. Thus, more manufacturers are wanting to produce automatic adapting devices for Glocks than other guns.
Bit of a chicken and egg situation, tbh.
Yes. You can make pretty much any semiautomatic pistol (or reciprocating rifle) full auto with a fucking shoestring. There are other mods for other guns that are not even remotely complicated. I won’t get into any specifics for the sake of public safety but Glocks are not very unique, they’re super common which is why parts and mods are so abundant.
The shoestring machinegun that got the ATF letter was a Mini-14 (which importantly had an exposed reciprocating charging handle) if I recall correctly, and it was still very janky. I’m trying to figure out the engineering of the same concept with a Glock with just a string and I am having some trouble.
Good, don’t do it because it’s a felony.
And the built in trigger safety makes it easier.
Popular item has many accessories.
Whodathunk.
The gun is popular with criminals for the same reason it’s popular overall. Oh noes.
As usual, the gun isn’t the problem. Gun laws allowing access to it by criminals are.