More perfecter but does it gadget?

MOT

Regular Member
Glocks were a totally logistic choice for me. Didn’t even like them at first. Of the few modifications I consider mandatory, one is the striker control device, the gadget. For all the reasons.
A little context, I’m a non mil, non LE concealed carry dude and I shoot competitions when there’s ammo to do it. All my carry guns (glocks) have a gadget.
Now I think there are many non-glock options that are just as good, if not better. And I would prefer them over the glocks if I could have a gadget in there. FN, CZ, HK, Beretta, Sig, Walther, to name a few. I like a good striker fired trigger and ergonomics, but none of these other quality options seem to have a gadget. I’d be happy to jump to a different platform however I’m stuck wishing for a striker control device. Am I alone in this?
 
"Am I alone in this"

Probably, tbh. I understand the draw for the gadget, as I'll gladly refer to it, and I understand the arguments for it. I just don't think it's that essential. I visualize my holster, keep my finger far clear, and track my muzzle gently in. The gadget would be another degree of safety I guess, but there's a not-often discussed trade-off to it:

If I'm in a clinch and need to be able to take a shot with my muzzle pressed into BadGuy™ I may need to get my thumb up behind the slide to keep it in battery. With a gadget, that maneuver defeats my striker and I'm done until I can break the clinch.

To Circle Back (credit: Jen Psake) to your original question "would I avoid other striker-fired designs for a lack of a striker-control device" - certainly not. I've been a Glock guy carrying a 19 for six years, but I'm gonna hop on that PDP train as soon as I can. I don't expect a gadget to ever be available, and I'm okay with it. The gadget is a neat innovation, but I'm perfectly okay without it.
 
You aren’t alone.

I wouldn’t say that I’d never consider carrying a gun without a hammer or gadget, but I’d definitely prefer to have it.

I value the added safety of the gadget over a slightly better trigger or texture, especially since I can do custom work to a Glock to close that gap but don’t have an option to add the gadget to other guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MOT

Stanislao

Regular Member
Pretty sure the striker control device is inspired by the old revolver trick of pinning the hammer forward with your thumb. I went for the external hammer Ruger LCRx for precisely that reason. So at least for revolvers "the gadget" is a well established concept.

Most of the striker fired guns you listed offer a thumb safety, which fills much the same role. With my SIG P320/M18 I've conditioned myself to have my thumb under the safety, driving it upwards, whenever my finger is off the trigger. When I'm shooting my thumb drives the safety down at the same time my index finger moves from the safe position to the trigger. Many 1911 shooters do the same thing. This is of course a habit that must be learned, but so is everything.
 

MOT

Regular Member
"Am I alone in this"

Probably, tbh. I understand the draw for the gadget, as I'll gladly refer to it, and I understand the arguments for it. I just don't think it's that essential. I visualize my holster, keep my finger far clear, and track my muzzle gently in. The gadget would be another degree of safety I guess, but there's a not-often discussed trade-off to it:

If I'm in a clinch and need to be able to take a shot with my muzzle pressed into BadGuy™ I may need to get my thumb up behind the slide to keep it in battery. With a gadget, that maneuver defeats my striker and I'm done until I can break the clinch.

To Circle Back (credit: Jen Psake) to your original question "would I avoid other striker-fired designs for a lack of a striker-control device" - certainly not. I've been a Glock guy carrying a 19 for six years, but I'm gonna hop on that PDP train as soon as I can. I don't expect a gadget to ever be available, and I'm okay with it. The gadget is a neat innovation, but I'm perfectly okay without it.
All good points.
To be clear, I am absolutely NOT saying that a gadget replaces safe holster habits. It doesn’t. Just as has been said, it’s an additional layer. I started carrying glocks and appendix without the SCD and was fine. I have learned proper holster technique and I’ve never had the gadget pop up during re holstering.

To your point about contact shooting...
Firstly, as far as the gadget goes, yes you can still force the slide to stay in battery without engaging the gadget. The thumb just exerts more toward the top corner of the slide or rear sight. With how the doodad thingy works to activate it you really need to apply pressure toward the bottom or middle of the slide plate. Pushing forward on the top of the slide/rear sight allows enough play for the trigger to function. At least in my hands.
Secondly, for contact shots, I don’t necessarily have to jam the gun to the hilt (somewhat unlike a knife) into bad guy. Just a touch will do.
Thirdly, I want to avoid pulling a gun during a hand to hand encounter, if I can. Use of force escalation and potential disarms and so on. If I absolutely need to make hard pressed contact shots I also have a j frame in a pocket. That’s getting a bit off topic though, and I’m no gunfighter.

I do find myself holstering a loaded gun frequently, either in daily use or training/practice/competition. Contact shooting while in a clinch, not so much.

A couple other drawbacks to the SCD.
It is somewhat costly and model specific.
I thought it would allow more access of gunk into the weapon, turns out it doesn’t. And it jiggles when I run, which is annoying.
All this said, I do wish I could have arguably better guns with this feature.

Thanks for chiming in gents.
 

rudukai13

Pro Internet User
This was covered fairly extensively in another thread (http://primaryandsecondary.com/foru...er-control-device-for-non-glock-pistols.7533/) but here’s the summary directly from Tom at Tau Dev:

In general, if it’s possible to create a safe, reliable, robust, and affordable drop-in Striker Control Device, with an adequate margin of safety, for a gun with a meaningful market share we will do it.

While all striker fired designs are capable of having SCD-like functionality, some designs (like those with partially tensioned strikers – Glock, S&W SD9/40, CZ P-10, Walther PPS, etc.) are more amenable to an aftermarket drop-in device than others (like those with fully tensioned strikers — S&W M&P, HK VP9, Sig P320 & P365, Walther PPQ, etc.).

I have SCD designs for the M&P, P320, and P365 pistols, but due to being fully tensioned striker designs they are not compatible with a simple drop-in Glock-style device and would require various levels of modification (some to the slide, others to the frame) they would likely prove cost prohibitive and I’m still not sure any of them would provide an adequate margin of safety or satisfactory user experience — so it’s not terribly likely they will be produced any time soon.

A SCD for the S&W SD series -- which can use a device almost identical to the Glock version, just with slightly different dimensions -- is possible, but it's uncertain if it could be produced at a price point that would be agreeable to people who buy a "budget" pistol such as the SD.

There's a chance for a CZ P-10 SCD, but with a simple Glock-style SCD the angled rear face of the striker/firing pin causes problems (it's like a wheel chock and changes the force vector due to striker movement from straight to the rear to towards the hinge pin which causes the pivoting portion of the SCD to bind and not just freely swing out of the way). I can probably find a way to work around it and may eventually release an SCD for the P-10, but it's not coming anytime soon.

In a nutshell, development is ongoing, but we have no support for any additional guns to announce at this time

Stanislao’s comment re: manual thumb safety options should be thoroughly considered as well, it’s a good alternative option for a tactile external safety on non-Glock striker-fired pistols
 
  • Like
Reactions: MOT
The argument that I’ve seen on other forums for feeling comfortable without a gadget is that re-holstering isn’t timed. There’s nothing to be gained from quickly putting your firearm away, as opposed to quickly deploying it. Because of this, there’s always sufficient time to slow down and make sure that the trigger is clear and doesn’t catch on anything. This makes sense to me, but I’m not an expert
 

shoobe01

Established
The argument that I’ve seen on other forums for feeling comfortable without a gadget is that re-holstering isn’t timed. There’s nothing to be gained from quickly putting your firearm away, as opposed to quickly deploying it. Because of this, there’s always sufficient time to slow down and make sure that the trigger is clear and doesn’t catch on anything. This makes sense to me, but I’m not an expert
This. Takes a lot of conscious effort to get used to it, and there's all too often secondary pressure from the firing line, the SO or MD, etc. to get going now the fun loud part is done, so people re-holster too fast.

For me, just always at least saying to yourself that you are looking around, clearing the scene, etc. then... holster now it's safe. A step between last shot and holster to shift gears.
 
Top