The Gadget: an additional safety device for Glock pistols

The Glock 17 burst upon the world pistol scene in the 80’s. Chunky, inelegant, having a polymer (“PLASTIC?!” the purists cried) frame, and…..lacking an external safety but for the tab on the trigger.  Naturally, everyone kept their boogerhook off of the bangswitch and everyone lived happily ever after, right?

Well, no.  Several lawsuits were filed by law enforcement personnel.  Many of these lawsuits were attempting to blame Glock for negligent discharges when disassembling the pistol in order to clean as one must pull the trigger in order to disassemble it.  Nonetheless, there were and inevitably will be more, lawsuits resulting from negligent discharges when attempting to reholster a Glock pistol.  Some examples are:

1. An FBI agent

2. Massachusetts officer shoots hole through pants reholstering

3. Officer Bill McMahan

4. Harlan County

So, do we have a mechanical problem with Glocks and other pistols that have the safety on the trigger or do we have a training problem?  Obviously, every pistol owner should take a training class that goes beyond the good Lieutenant Colonel’s Four Rules.  However, with full time law enforcement personnel experiencing negligent discharges from their issued Glocks they were trained to use, should we not expect negligent discharges from Glock owning citizens?  The answer is “yes” and aside from the very real (though not widespread) danger of negligently firing a Glock when reholstering, Glocks have many virtues:

  • fairly corrosion proof
  • Not difficult to learn how to use effectively
  • Not expensive
  • Extremely reliable and durable (please ponder the difference between the two)
  • A simple design, easy to clean and work on

So, some years ago a visionary met the engineer who could implement his vision.  No, I am not talking about the venerable Woz and Jobs but rather the shooting instructor “ToddG” and his student and friend Tom Jones.  ToddG had an wistful dream.  You see, ToddG is known far and wide for personally choosing to carry his pistol at the appendix position and inside his waist band, popularly known as “AIWB” (Appendix Inside Waist Band).  ToddG was in the middle of one of his famous fifty thousand rounds in six months pistol tests and the current test pistol was a Gen4 Glock 17.  ToddG had learned to enjoy the additional safety of reholstering his test HK P30 with his thumb on the hammer, thereby effectively negating any chance of a negligently discharged bullet hitting either his groin or his femoral artery.  ToddG wished aloud in Tom’s presence something along the lines of “I wish I could reholster a Glock like I did my P30.”

Sometimes, a spark like that is all you need.  Tom thought upon ToddG’s idea and went to the pen and napkin drawing room.  The next day he presented ToddG with his idea. After that day, he went to his workshop and thought, designed, and built what is now known as the Gadget Striker Control Device (for the sake of brevity, I will refer to it as the Gadget).

The Gadget is a safety device for Glock pistols.  It is two pieces of metal that replace the Glock’s slide cover plate.  It has one moving part.  Upon inspection of a Gadget installed Glock, the observer must carefully examine the pistol to ascertain what aftermarket part has been installed.  Should the Gadget have its lone moving part broken (this has not happened in four years of testing), the pistol will continue to function.  The Gadget is for all intents and purposes, aesthetically identical to the factory OEM slide cover plate.  Functionally, it is also corrosion proof and insofar as four years of testing by dozens of testers can rule out, idiot proof.  Maintenance is very nearly fool proof.  Apply one drop of lubricant (I used Slip2000 EWL) to each side of the lone moving part.  That is it. 

Installation of the Gadget is not an involved process.  Unload your Glock.  Do this again, four times.  Move to a room with no ammunition in it.  Retract the slide on your Glock, engage the slide stop.  Turn the weapon upside down on a flat surface, resting it upon its sights.  Take a smaller flathead screwdriver or a knife tip or a ballpoint pen tip and press the spacer sleeve (part #6 on this diagram forward, that is towards the end where the bullets come out.  Pushing towards the bottom of the slide with your other thumb, remove the slide cover plate.  Keeping the spacer sleeve depressed, slide the Gadget in until it covers the spacer sleeve and then you will have to depress the spring loaded bearing and slide the Gadget until it clicks firmly into place.  Cease pressure on the spacer sleeve, disengage the slide stop and allow the slide to go forward.  Rack the slide and inspect the chamber to assure yourself that no phantom rounds have been chambered.  Pointing the weapon in a safe direction, attempt to pull the trigger with your strong side thumb on the Gadget or where the slide cover plate was.  If you have installed the Gadget correctly, any pressure on the trigger will be instantly felt by your thumb that is resting against the Gadget.  Furthermore, your thumb’s pressure on the Gadget will easily overpower any pressure on the trigger.

The actual patent for the Gadget Striker Control Device illustrates the elegant simplicity of the design.  This is a schematic of the device itself.  Pictures being sometimes louder than words, click this link to see exactly how the device keeps the Glock’s striker from moving to the rear and thereby canceling out the firing process.

So what is it like in practice, having a Gadget equipped Glock?  Reassuring.  Once you teach yourself the nearly instinctive placement of the thumb upon the Gadget, muscle memory takes over.  Whether it be my Safariland GLS, my JM Custom AIWB, or my JM Custom IWB 3 holster, I always thumb the Gadget when reholstering.  It would take conscious effort not to do so.  I have been personally using a Gadget during training, some competition, and personal practice for nearly four years including one Vickers Tactical class.  The device has never malfunctioned for me nor any of the other dozens of people who were testing it.  It requires perhaps two drops of oil every few thousand rounds.  It develops a slight bit of surface wear and then stops wearing.  In my opinion, Glocks need at least two upgrades from the factory:  decent sights and a Gadget.

So, the inevitable outcry will be shrill.  “Glocks don’t need additional safeties!”  “THIS is my safety.”  “It’s just a trinket.”  “This is NO substitute for training.” (I absolutely agree with the last).  My personal favorite is “This will get you killed on the streets in a gun grab if your attacker grabs the rear of the slide and disables your Glock!”  This moronic argument completes ignores the existence of hammer fired pistols that can be disabled in an identical manner such as the HK P30, M1911A1, Sigs, the Browning Hi Power, and so on.  Watch Tom Givens put that silly argument to rest in this video where he demonstrates how you can disable a Glock without a Gadget.   And so, will the predictable phrases be uttered by those who have not used one of these devices nor even have seen one in person.  However, if you think you would like to be able to reholster a Glock in a completely safe manner using a simple device that will not break and that if used properly, will guarantee you will not say have a negligent discharge due to a drawstring on your jacket getting in the trigger guard.  Furthermore, the man when it comes to actual fighting with guns, ground fighting with guns, and training you how to deal with a gun grab; Craig Douglas AKA “SouthNarc” of ShivWorks has the following to say about the Gadget:

Todd gave me two gadgets a few years ago to put on two Glock 17 Sim guns to test this very issue. I ran them for a year and in that time had about 500 entangled gun fights with them in my coursework. I have yet to see the Gadget be the factor in a failure to fire. The vast majority of the time if it’s a failure to fire it’s the slide being pushed out of battery.

You may purchase a Gadget here at IndieGoGo.  The current Gadget has been tested on 9mm, 40, 45, and 10mm Glocks of all frame sizes.  The only Glocks that will not accept the current Gadget as-is are the 42/43. Specific decisions and plans regarding those models have not been finalized but it’s safe to assume that it’s being looked at seriously.


The Gadget installed in my Gen4 Glock 17
 photo fdf81a41d3caf91ba863c0bfe4dea149_zpsh7xgb865.jpg

This picture illustrates how the Gadget moves with the pistol’s striker if the striker is being engaged.  

 photo 76bbfc1bd862b6347e0072a3f7d99dec_zpsk6pox5jp.jpg

The Gadget uninstalled using the tip of my Joe Watson HITS knife.

 photo 650d99eb596703dc81558c14c5027e80_zpssxkpixaz.jpg

Clearly the Gadget does not have to be clean in order to function. My Glock gets a cleaning every few thousand rounds whether it needs or not.

 photo 262b9a01c7c1420a748c795eb32510ad_zpswy36dhic.jpg

78 thoughts on “The Gadget: an additional safety device for Glock pistols”

  1. No, no, no, no, no. If you’re negligent and, as a result, incompetent, some gadget should not compensate for your negligence and incompetence. Training should address the vacuum of competence. Else, people die.

    Gadgetry is no remedy to incompetence. Coddling incompetence is no remedy, either. Learn to be competent in what you do or suffer the consequences. This gadget should be considered a total fail for gun owners. It is nothing more than a facilitation of negligence.

    1. Mr. Rutledge,
      I sincerely applaud your zealous advocacy for training and attention to detail that should aid in safety for us all. You are correct that this is what we should all strive for.
      After 45 years of being a lifeguard, EMT, Paramedic, Firefighter, and/or Physician, I have had the opportunity to witness the myriad ways in which people end up hurting themselves or others. Some invariably begin with those fateful words, “Watch this!”, and others through a variety of negligent or incompetently performed acts. I assumed, mistakenly as it turned out, that I would be better prepared than most to avoid such catastrophic pitfalls. Perhaps I am, though I have come to realize that there is a reason they are called “accidents”. As mortals, we are imperfect. If I drive very carefully, should I dispense with seatbelts or helmets?
      Getting back to your main message, the device in question is not likely to work if not used. Its use demands attention. If that additional attention alone makes you think about other factors necessary for the safe use of the Glock, then that is a good thing.
      I will still use seatbelts and, loathe as I am to say it, helmets. I will also try to drive with skill and attention.
      With hope for the safety of all, whether they choose to use this device or not,

    2. The brain is not infallible. Have you ever locked your keys in the car? Walked into a room and forgotten what you are looking for? Sometimes the circuits short out…no matter how careful you are.

  2. A safety that only works when I remember to put my thumb on it. Instead of remembering to not put my finger on the trigger. Nice try, but a completely passive safety that I would have to touch to DE-activate would get my money. I can forget the gadget as easily as forgetting trigger just as easily and save $55. Sorry.

  3. Baxter, this is not a device made to address a safety concern. It’s a prosthetic meant to address an issue of incompetence for those who want to be free to disregard safety and observation. Just like the self-parking features on cars for people who don’t want to work to be competent; just like the auto-braking features on cars for unobservant, cellphone-obsessed incompetents who don’t want to pay attention. This is a device for people who want to use a deadly weapon, but don’t want to be observant, don’t want to train, and don’t want to possess competence.

    And no, my handguns don’t have external safeties because safety isn’t something a switch can offer. A person is safe. A mechanism either works or it doesn’t, but an extra switch does not introduce safety.

    1. “This is a device for people who want to use a deadly weapon, but don’t want to be observant, don’t want to train, and don’t want to possess competence.”

      You are an ignoramus.

  4. Andy, it’s a nice to have. Things happen and this is optional for purchase and options for use. You seem to be an unhappy, negative person who has a very black and white view with no shades of gray. One can only ponder upon your conflicting views if say you had been whisked back to JMB’s drawing board when he incorporated the 1911A1’s grip safety. I’m certain you would have berated him for adding something so needless and then perhaps ridiculed his training level and competence at weapons handling JUST LIKE you did to myself, ToddG, and the countless other people who have actually USED this device.

    We can all only aspire your own god like levels of competence.

  5. Baxter, You’re right; we don’t need to train to obtain fundamental competence or safe habits. Those are for doofuses, and gods, apparently. Let’s just wallow in irresponsibility and, hopefully, stuff’ll just work out. I hear there’s a new gadget that will make dangerous gun handling “safe.” Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. Andy — As one of the people who is bringing this to market, let me begin by saying that folks who don’t see a benefit in our Striker Control Device shouldn’t get one. It’s like telling someone to get blue paper for a home printer: either you think it will help you achieve something and get it, or you don’t… and don’t. If people who make blue paper insist everyone MUST have blue paper, they’re idiots.

      Having said that, I think it’s unfair to suggest that we as a company or the people who choose to add a Gadget to their guns are somehow less safe or less well trained. I’d be happy to compare training and shooting resumes with you if you’d like.

      The analogy you gave about the “auto-braking feature” is an excellent one. It’s a new technology that helps prevent accidents when someone isn’t behaving perfectly. Some people will insist that they’re too dialed in to make such a mistake and won’t want that feature. That’s their right, absolutely. Others will see it from the standpoint of “I’m capable of making a mistake” and I don’t think their admission of human fallibility translates into them being bad or unsafe drivers.

      Thank you very sincerely for your feedback and your involvement in the Second Amendment community. Train hard & stay safe!

      1. I am one who does not believe that the Glock needs any safety device “improvement”. IMO, one of the “best” features of a Glock is that IF, God forbid, you or I ever find themselves in a true life or death self-defense situation, with the Glock pistol, you only need to draw, aim(if you have the time) and press the trigger. In the life or death scared shitless situation you do NOT have to “remember” to flick off a traditional thumb safety or depress your “Gadget” or anything else in order to hopefully save your life! That is what I want on my concealed carry pistol.

        However, I understand that many people like the idea of a “safety” device on their pistols for the “peace of mind” that it seems to give them. Personally, I have never trusted these devices to work “every time”. I am especially leery of the safety’s on 1911s when carrying in the traditional “cocked and locked” Condition 1. I do not normally carry a 1911, but I have scared the crap out of myself before after driving and getting out of the car and realizing that the “safety” had disengaged due to the seatbelt or some other cause! Now True, the Grip safety was still “engaged, I “hope”, but seeing that trigger sticking up pointing at my leg or foot was just a bit nerve wracking.

        So, I am not against all safety devices. After all, Glocks do indeed have 3 safety devices built into the trigger assembly (although no one seems to want to acknowledge this fact). In closing, as someone who has NOT used your device, it does appear to be an interesting concept. However, I am not sure that I see it as better than a traditional thumb safety that already is available as an option on Glocks to those who want one. I suppose that the idea is to disengage this device while drawing the pistol by depressing it with your thumb?

        1. Northman556, you have it backwards. You engage this safety when holstering. Not disengage when drawing.

          1. This safety has to be actively engaged. One disengages it by simply ceasing pressure upon it. It is not “on” unless your thumb is on the backplate. There are no official competitive rulings on this device but given the nature of USPSA’s divisions, it’s certainly legal in USPSA and offers no competitive advantage.

        2. As Baxter points out, the Gadget Striker Control Device is only blocking the striker movement when your thumb is actively pressing against it. If your thumb isn’t pressing the back of the slide, the Glock works like it always does. The Gadget Striker Control Device doesn’t have a lock or anything of that sort.

          As for IDPA, the Gadget would be an external modification that is not on the inclusive list in SSP. By my reading of the rules as they stand today, it should be permitted in ESP as an aftermarket slide cover plate ( and/or an aftermarket safety ( But your best bet is to contact IDPA Headquarters for an official decision on the matter.

    2. I understand your thinking but disagree. We aren’t all “machines,” no matter how hard we try.

      In a real-life (live fire) situation, when you eventually put the weapon away, perhaps after rolling on the ground, or having been engaged in more than just gun fire — something could have gotten into your holster. Your adrenalin is going to be pumping and you will arguably be upset and less attentive to all of the appropriate details and safety practices than might be the case at the range, etc. (Ever been in a car accident? What happens in the first minutes afterwards can lead to some big surprises.) .

      If you’re so stressed enouigh to forget to push that button on the back of the slide [engaging the device] (which, hopefuily you will have done enough to make it part of your muscle-memory routine], you’re still no worse off than you were before you installed the device.

      If they eventually make one for the Glock 38 [or if the one for 17 version works with that model] I may get one.

      1. The Gadget will indeed work on the Glock 38. Glock thankfully uses the same size backplate for all their guns except the G42 and G43…so the gadget will work on everything except the G42 and G43.

  6. For decades police officers who were issued a revolver were taught to put their thumb on the hammer of the revolver while reholstering in case the retention straps used on their holsters worked their way into the trigger guard. The Gadget allows people do do the same thing with a Glock pistol. It’s very simple, very effective, and it adds an extra layer of insurance against an unintentional discharge of the pistol when reholstering.

    In the real world, weapons are handled by imperfect human beings under a wide range of circumstances. An example: I know a police officer who experienced an unintentional discharge of his issued Glock sidearm when the thumbsnap of his department-mandated plain-clothes holster worked inside the trigger guard of his pistol while he reholstered. At the moment he reholstered, one of the people on his team was getting his face bashed in by the violent felon they were trying to apprehend. The Gadget would have prevented that wound.

    Negligence and incompetence are not the only reasons someone can end up with a loud noise while reholstering.

    I fully expect people who complain about The Gadget to disable their airbags and anti-lock brakes on their vehicles…as well as the drop safeties on their pistols. After all, if you’re doing things right none of those things should be necessary…

    1. I started on revolvers and developed this habit. It’s not something I think about, and I still do it automatically. With my XD it has the effect of pulling my hand away from the grip safety as I reholster. I do it with my Glock too, even though it has no effect at all. Sounds like this could be a good item for me. Not mandatory as proper training and caution should make it unnecessary, but in the real world sometimes “stuff happens”.

      Human beings are easily distracted, it’s just part of how we’re made. As long as this doesn’t make the gun more difficult to operate or impair functionality this sounds like a great idea.

      1. Precisely, John. I can say from experience with the product that it hasn’t impacted the function of my Glock pistols in any way without my deliberate activation of it. I’ve fired thousands of rounds with a Gadget equipped Glock and I’ve witnessed thousands more fired by others. It minds its own business unless called upon during the reholstering process.

    2. This seems completely unnecessary. I’ve been carrying Glocks of more than ten years now without a negligent discharge while holstering. (Or doing anything else.)
      That said, I’ll be putting these on my Glocks. It’s a device that I’ll probably never need. Unless I do. It’s a cheap insurance policy that doesn’t seem to offer any downside I can see. Kinda like the striker plunger/firing pin safety in my Glock.

      Good job, Todd and Tom!

  7. I should apologize and admit that Andy is right about training since I made it a point to say that THIS DEVICE OBVIATES THE NEED FOR TRAINING in the article.

  8. Interesting idea. How do you folks think it compares with the grip safety on the Springfield XD? The Gadget behaves like a hammer, which means it’s still possible for the Glock to fire if pressure on the trigger exceeds the thumb pressure. With the grip safety you just have to keep your hand off the lever, still possible to screw that up too but seems like a more robust ND prevention. XD users reholster pushing down with the thumb on the back of the slide.

    There’s the Cominolli external safety available for the Glock but takes more expertise to install (they recommend a gunsmith).

    So altogether at least 3 different types of external safeties for the striker-fired pistol (whether designated SA or DA). If I could have whatever I want OEM, I might like a Glock with a grip safety.

    Funny thing is, I do NOT like a grip safety on the 1911. With the firing hand thumb riding the top of the thumb safety it’s possible for the grip safety to remain engaged when you need to fire.

    1. I like the Gadget more than the grip safety on the XD because The Gadget doesn’t impact the function of anything but the striker and that only when you want it to. The grip safety on the XD also locks the slide which I find objectionable because it can impact remedial action for a stoppage or malfunction clearance. The Gadget has no impact on the function of the pistol unless pressure is deliberately applied by the user.

  9. I have to admit I kind of like the idea. The greatest value I see is for those who regularly attend firearms training, where many iterations of draw/holster are performed. In particular, those training opportunities where (sadly) they put much less emphasis on “slowly, reluctantly, holster your weapon.” (Want to know someone’s level of training? Don’t watch them draw, watch them put it away)

    No device will substitute for training, but I can think of several scenarios where this device would be invaluable. To wit:
    1. You are training for the first time with a cover garment.
    2. You are wearing a jacket or sweatshirt because it’s cold and you don’t usually do so.
    3. You are switching from your winter carry to your summer carry (IWB) or vice versa.
    4. You are a cop and re-holstering at speed may be necessary.

    The only downside I can come up with is for those of us who carry a different gun on occasion (1911 guys and gals). But on a 1911 my thumb is pressing up on the thumb safety as I re-holster. So maybe that’s actually a good thing.

    I’ll be getting one to try out. Thanks for the tip.

  10. For Ch**t’s Sake, thumb safeties are NOT some Panacea that make handguns safe! Your Brain makes handguns safe! Period! A Glock or any similar pistol MUST be carries in a holster that covers the Trigger Guard. This should apply to ALL pistols. Only idiots, IMO, would trust a thumb safety with their (and others) lives! Only Eunuchs should carry a gun “Mexican Carry” or whatever it is called by sticking a pistol down the front of your pants without a holster no matter what kind of “safety” it may have. You CAN carry a pistol safely in your front pants pocket IF you have a holster that covers the trigger guard securely. I personally carry a Trigger Guard holster from Aegeis Holster that snaps over the Triiger guard and has a parachute cord that ties onto your belt line. The “Holster” snaps off of the pistol as you draw the pistol and start to push it towards your target. It reaches the end of the Paracord and pops off. You finger can now access the trigger as needed.

    1. Good job on refuting my claim in the article that “THIS DEVICE OBVIATES THE NEED FOR TRAINING,” northman556. Sounds like a really awesome holster you have there, must be great for training with the parachute cord and all.

      1. The Trigger Guard Holster with the Paracord IS a very nice holster for my Springfield XD 9mm Subcompact Mod.2. It is sitting in my pocket as I sit on the couch writing this reply in my right front pocket of my 5.11 pants which is what I virtually always wear. I cannot even tell that it is there. Aegeis Holster also makes a nice Clamshell type holster that you can conceal carry (or not) with paracord that goes around the back of your neck. You draw by pulling straight down which pops the pistol out of the clamshell. Works well under a shirt, especially for smaller pistols.

        At any rate, a practical question about the “Gadget”. Is it “legal” for competition shooting such as IDPA, USPSA, GSSF, etc.? I shoot these regularly, mostly with my Glock 17, although my Glock choices are rather extensive.

        1. It’s legal for USPSA but of course that depends on which division you are competing in. I couldn’t guess at IDPA nor GSSF. It doesn’t effect trigger pull or offer any sort of competitive advantage but common sense often doesn’t apply with these sorts of rulings. I’ll be competing in USPSA using it tomorrow.

  11. “The infamous DEA agent” pointed a loaded Glock at his foot and squeezed the trigger, all well clear of the holster. Not a relevant example.

    Plaxico Burress was carrying in his waistband, the gun slipped down and and he snatched it through the fabric, pulling the trigger in the process. Not a relevant example.

    No info on how Officer McMahan managed to shoot himself beyond he was recovering his off-duty pistol from his patrol car.

    Quite the Ayoob job with the irrelevant examples.

    1. MikeS, you’re right, the “examples” are poor. It’s a work in process. I have found one better example and updated the article, more coming.

  12. You keep saying “THIS DEVICE OBVIATES THE NEED FOR TRAINING.” You keep using that word “obviate” but I do not think it means what you think it means. To “obviate the need for training” means to “eliminate the need for training” which is the exact opposite of what your article is trying to say.

    1. I’m 99.9% certain that Baxter was being facetious with that comment. Hence the quotations and all-caps.

  13. Good write-up. Not sure if I’d buy one, were they offered for my gun (yeah, I’m a M&P heretic), but you’ve convinced me there’s value here.

  14. Two of the trainers I respect are ToddG and Mike Pannone. If you read Pannone’s articles he describes that he reholsters with his thumb over the hammer of his CZ. The Gadget allows for this action on a Glock. But these two guys have a collective MILLONS of rounds, so I don’t think they do it from lack of training or to make up for not wanting to train or from some innate level of incompetence. It’s an additional safety measure. I personally enjoy having functional and aesthetically pleasing genitalia, so I will be getting one of these for my Glock.

  15. Baxter is clearly being sarcastic, morons. I’d say some posters are destined for a perforated buttcheek, however, that would require actually carrying and training with their firearm. Don’t want one? Then don’t buy one. Those puffing their chests and acting infallible make me laugh.

  16. Baxter – Since the gadget has moving part(s) there has to be some degree of opportunity for it to fail. When it does fail, what is the primary failure mode, and what is the result of that failure regarding operation of the pistol? (I am assuming that at least one unit has been tested to failure).

      1. Ok Baxter, I was convinced that it might be something to try. So I went to the Indiegogo website and there does not appear to be anything there about the Gadget for Glocks. Now, thesite going to be? one Blog site T something, said that contributors would be able to purchase one of these Gadgets for $55 or $50 or something like that. I assumed (a dangerous thing to do) that the Indiegogo was the site that “contributors” contributed money. I now guess not? Anyway, how are you supposed to purchase a “Gadget” if there is no listing on Indiegogo ? Is it just going to magically appear on July 10th? And if so, what is the name of the site going to be?

        1. northman56, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the article and in the linked blog post on, the Indiegogo campaign will launch next Friday, July 10, 2015.

    1. To this point, as far as I am aware, hundreds of thousands of rounds have been put downrange with a Gadget equipped pistol…no failures in the wild so far. It is made out of high-grade hardened stainless steel. Keep in mind how this device functions: There is no resistance to the movement of the striker without deliberate pressure on the pressure plate. If the pistol is tilted upwards even slightly and pressure is applied to the trigger, the pressure plate swings instantly to full extension.

      It is designed so that if there is a failure the worst that happens is the hinged pressure plate which actually interacts with the striker will fall off the gun entirely…as in being completely free of the weapon. The static part of The Gadget will stay in place and function like a normal Glock backplate, retaining the striker and extractor spring rod.

      The hinged pressure plate literally experiences no contact with any functional components of the weapon unless the trigger is being pulled. Because The Gadget is designed to offer no interference with the trigger pull without deliberate pressure applied, it moves freely in any other circumstance (during trigger pull or recoil) so it isn’t under any stress and doesn’t place any stress on the striker.

      1. I’ll put it this way: The Gadget, as designed, is unable to cause any functional issue with a Glock that a factory Glock backplate wouldn’t also cause if it failed. One could even argue it’s far less failure prone than a factory Glock backplate because it’s made out of quality hardened steel instead of the polymer/stamped steel hybrid backplate that Glock puts on the weapons.

    2. The Gadget consists of three parts: a steel “inner slide plate” and steel “lever” plus the pin that holds them together. The pin would appear to be the weakest link in the chain though, as others have pointed out, so far we’ve not had one fail even on guns with tens of thousands of rounds through them.

      Nonetheless, if the pin were to fail, the lever would fall off the gun. The inner slide plate connects to the Glock just like a factory slide plate except it is all steel instead of partially plastic like the OEM part. It will continue to retain the striker and extractor depressor plunger just like the OEM part.

      Part of the design criteria for the Gadget was that its failure mode would specifically “fail” to a can-still-be-fired condition. If the lever should fall off the gun for some reason, it’s like you never had a Gadget (you lose the Gadget’s safety functionality but the gun still fires as normal).

  17. I’m still puzzled on what the utility for this “device” is. I purchased my first Glock (a model 21) in 1993, which I still own along with 12 other Glocks of various model and calibers. I not only carried at least one of these for my daily CCW, I also carried them on LE duty. I have also used Glocks in various training courses and competition. I have one, my Glock 30, that have had over 20,000 document rounds fired through it.

    Besides ownership, the first Glock I ever shot was in 1991 was a Glock 21 that belonged to a member of my ARNG unit Rifle Team (which I had organized, ran and lead). He was a Police Officer and Armorer for a city in DE. I’m not suggesting that I am some expert on Glocks or shooting. What I am pointing out is I have more than two decades of experience using Glocks for duty, EDC and recreation; not some neophyte or simple hobbyist.

    So basically I have been using and shooting Glocks for more than 20-years and cannot recall a single incident that would call for this device. Maybe it has utility for someone who has lightened up their Glock’s trigger to unsafe levels? Which makes sense because these are the same individuals whose first modifications upon purchasing their Glock usually involve the newest gadgets that someone has brought to market.

    Is this just another example of a solution looking for a problem? Or worse, could this be just another aftermarket device that can seriously affect a Glock’s reliability?

    1. Neither, Carlos. How about you examine one in person first? The device has never effected reliability.

  18. Were I a Glock owner, I’d buy one. I think it’s a great idea. I don’t see it so much as a “keep me from pulling the trigger” device (for the “this is my safety” crowd) as a “keep my retention strap/jacket drawstring/other obstruction from pulling the trigger” device. I’m a 1911 shooter, so I use the thumb safety for that purpose, but for Glocks, I think this should have been unnecessary; it should have been in the factory design.

    Bravo on coming up with such a simple, elegant solution.

  19. As a daily Glock user for many years, I am always very concerned when re-holstering. It makes me nervous. Wearing a long shirt as a “gun burka”, there’s always the possibility (small though it may be) of some part of the shirt getting inside the trigger guard, or as you pointed out, a drawstring on a coat, etc.

    This device is a cool idea. The one thing I DO NOT LIKE about it, though, it is the fact that I didn’t think of it ; ) Maybe that’s what has some of the other guys irritated as well.

  20. I’ve been using the Gadget for a few years now and recommend it without reservation for anyone who owns a Glock. It offers a measure of safety when holstering that’s ingenious, discreet and reliable. There are no downsides or drawbacks to using it. Mine has given reliable service over 39,000 rounds thru my Glock 17 Gen 4, and I’ll be shooting it until the gun breaks.

    Great write up, Bax.

  21. Lots of whining going on here! I’m always careful when holstering, and always worried, did I miss something, did my shirt shift in the 1 second since I last checked and made sure the path was clear?

    This is no replacement for training and care, but it seems like a good supplement to the same.

    so the gadget moves with the trigger, pretty much at all times?

      1. If it moves as the trigger moves, does it add any increased resistance (i.e. Trigger pull weight) to your existing Trigger Pull?

  22. Andy, is English not your first language? Can you point to which phrase in my article that you think you’re refuting?

  23. I like the idea Baxter. I just feel the item is unfinished. Take it one more step so that it will stay in the depressed (safe) position until I decide to release it. Then put first on the list to buy.

        1. Thanks Baxter, I’m familiar with the cominolli, also the type that puts a button in the trigger (tried it, name escapes me). Have also seen the key lock type Glock offers. I like your approach better. The quality seems more appropriate for a glock. IMHO someone (you?) had a great idea and ran with it without taking it just a little further. Of course I could be wrong.

  24. Another point: It might be useful in a gun grab. When the Illinois State Police carried metal-frame S&W autos (first the Model 39, then various iterations of the 59 series) with the magazine disconnector,they were trained to drop the magazine if they felt the gun being taken away from them in a struggle. It supposedly saved the lives of over a dozen troopers during that period (1967 to about 1998).
    If you (or someone) could develop a simple, reliable method to depress the Gadget during a gun grab, it could buy an officer or armed citizen time to regain control of the weapon.

  25. No amount of training can make a person safe either. People are inherently unsafe. If there was an M&P gadget I would get one.


  26. I am rather surprised by the negative reaction to “The Gadget”. Most of these posts are full of contempt. WHY?

    First, its America! (Groovy, yeah capitalism!) Todd Green has a good idea and it changes how we think about striker fire safety. Why is a safety “option” such a threat to some people’s thinking?

    Second, In my state motorcycle riders must wear helmets. However, some wear considerable armor, some do not. Last I checked, it does not change the function of the bike. Or, as some like to put it, the training of the operator is not altered because of an added safety option.

    Third, on the HK website, I see all of these different trigger variations I can get if I buy an HK. These various triggers change how one can operate the pistol. Some triggers are inherently safer than others. I don’t see the HK fan boys freaking out about choice.

    Again, America not CCCP.

    If the Gadget is something you do not want on your Glock…fine. Why does it create such anger?

  27. Man, these comments are giving me a headache. I have more concerns about buying from/through indiegogo than I do about the actual gadget. It also feels like that’s a rather stiff price, but I guess if it were cheaper, then we’d be questioning it’s quality (even more.)

    I can see myself ordering one… or four…

  28. So the old trope, “never, ever read the comments” holds true yet again… sigh.

    If you don’t understand it or don’t want it, don’t buy one. I’d hazard to guess that TLG and the other folks that have tested “The Gadget” have more training hours and rounds down range than all the posters talking about TRAINING!!!!!11!

    It’s a completely passive safety until the shooter decides to place their thumb on it during re-holstering. What’s wrong with another (optional) level of safety during the holstering process?

    Personally, I think having some sort of tactile feedback to tell me if I’m in danger of ND-ing is a good thing. You may not always be able to “look the pistol into the holster” in a real-life situation.

  29. What about the cops that have reholstered, with their fingers off the trigger, yet something like a jacket drawstring manages to catch the trigger while reholstering? Or the officer that had the same thing happen but holstered successfully only to latter have the drawstring catch on something and fire his Glock in his holster? If his holster had a thumb break and a Gadget that never would have happened.

    I’m alway safe reholstering my Glock and I’ve been shooting them since 1992. However, I think the Gadget is ingenious. It’s one extra layer of safety ad what’s wrong with that? It only takes one time to mess up and have an AD. No one is perfect 100% of the time their whole life. Plus this part doesn’t affect the reliability of a Glock at all. I don’t understand why some people are getting so bent out of shape about it.

    1. ” I don’t understand why some people are getting so bent out of shape about it.”

      Because, like crash helmets, fire extinguishers, or even guns that are carried for self-defense, it is a reminder that things can go wrong. Some people would rather just not be reminded of the possibility for mishap, and so when they see someone tasking a precaution that they are not, it rustles their jimmies.

      If someone was truly comfortable with their level of assumed risk, the existence of the gadget would not bother them. It’s the hit dog that yelps.

  30. When they go on the open market I’m buying 4, one for each Glock I own. And I carry a 1911. I like the idea of having the additional layer of safety.

  31. I’ve been carrying TDA pistols for awhile now and have always put pressure on the hammer with my thumb when holstering. If/when I get another Glock I will buy one of these. I’ve been looking into the Walther PPS because it has a similar feature.

    But maybe if I were as locked on and squared away (and had the reading comprehension of a crustacean) as some of the operators in the comments here, I’d probably bitch about it too and quote some Eric Bana for good measure.

  32. Well it looks like an idea and the very least… And probably a pretty good one for what it is (a hard thumb safety for a Glock)! But to be completely honest after reading/rereading the article and watching some of the above commenters loose their shit over the concept I. Basically see three camps:
    1. This is sacrilege and you’ll all burn in hell fire for buying one, because Glock is perfect and if you aren’t then go train.
    2. This is an idea crafted by God and JMB themselves and all the cool kids are gonna buy it.
    3. (Me) yeah it may have a place, but with 11 years and god only knows how many rounds on pretty close to stock Glocks, I’m fine I don’t think I’ll change or if I do it’ll be when (and only when) I am goddamned good and ready.

    Did I miss anything?

Comments are closed.