There has been quite a bit of discussion about the Gadget over the past few days, both pro and con.
What strikes me is that safety improvements are held to a different standard that other modifications.
People will change their sights, triggers, even permanently modify the grip of a gun all in the name of shooting better. Now, we all know that — at the end of the day — you could just practice a lot more. But not every movement of the finger is going to be ideal and people make mistakes. Having modifications that make you perform better are improvements, simple as that. The fact that “paying more attention” and “training more” can also improve those things doesn’t detract from the simple fact that sometimes, an improvement is just an improvement. Freud would understand that.
But suggest that someone could improve safety the same way and immediately the Monks of the Holy Order of Self-Righteous Range Safety (see The Safety Sin, Revisited from 2013) object most subjectively. A modification that makes you more accurate is ok. A modification that makes you faster is ok. A modification that supposedly could make you safer? Blasphemy. For All who handle The Gun should already have Safety infallibly within Their Hearts (and Fingers).
If you think you can jerk the trigger or anticipate or heel the gun or fail to track your sights, then you’ve come to realize you’re capable of making mistakes. Welcome to the entire human population. So if you pretend that your safety habits are somehow immune to your human behavior… who are you trying to convince?
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Are there plans to make a Gadget for the Glock 43?
But this is the internet. I have come to the conclusion that SOME (just some, only some, some as in not all) gun owners see the fact that they own a gun now means they must become a battle ready, combat hardened warrior hard-ass USMC drill instructor.
They soon find themselves ordering books about ninjas, mindset and warrior code. They exchange their entire wardrobe for subdued tan and woodland camo, they get an all black negative display g-shock.
If something makes you safer then it’s not meant for a warrior or his glock. Excuse me as I waddle my behemoth muscular thighs downrange to take some photographs of my fellow gladiators. Keep your safety implements to yourself and leave hardcore to those who repel and fast-rope to the dinner table.
BRB Moms calling.
People? Who cares people? They don’t know what they don’t know. I don’t pay attention to people, but those who seem to know what they are talking about. Not too many in that category.
Yeah, I’ve been a bit amazed by the “opposed” crowd. His argument was it left the gun too open for foreign debris until I pointed out that (a) it didn’t, and (b) the hammer-fired CZ he loves and carries is way more prone to that.
Last I heard, you weren’t forcing anyone to install a gadget and get gay married…but you wouldn’t know it reading some of the comments.
NOTE: I’m spending this year focusing on speed from the draw and I HATE re-holstering in my IWB–I can’t see it and my shirt or boxers both try and get in the holster. I noticed everyone at the IDPA except me had an OWB and most shared the same dinky vest, which barely covered the holsters. It just didn’t seem like they were practicing for real world so much as gaming the system and not being true to the spirit of what I understand the purpose of IDPA is about.
No edit??
Ugh, by “his argument”, I meant a good friend who was–to my surprise–opposed to the idea (until I explained it to him better–pointing out it didn’t flop freely whenever, nor did it get out a shovel and scoop sand into the gun).
Joe’s comment got me thinking about the debris thing. I know the gadget has been tested 300k rounds by people who shoot all the time. This is an honest question (I’m extremely pro-gadget). Did it get tested for months of concealed carry without firing? Specifically, did it get full of pocket lint and still function appropriately without binding making the gun inoperable?
I think since it has TWO covers, it’s very sealed–especially compared to any DA/SA gun. I’ll let someone else exlain–but if you look at the diagrams, there should be no way for anything to get in there unless you pushed or sprayed it in when the gun was being fired. 😉
Norman, yes it did. Not just months, but years. I’ve carried my Gadget equipped G19 everyday since Todd and I had the first prototypes produced a little over 4 years ago. Due to some complications in my personal life, my range time for the past few years has essentially been zero. So, despite being carried every day for years without firing or any maintenance beyond periodic function checks, the gadget continues to function appropriately with no binding or any other issues.
Todd, the ‘Gadget’ link in the very first sentence ends up in “404 page not found”.
At least in my browser …
Thanks, yarco. I fixed a typo in the link and it works now.
Yo, been following this for years, congrats …, but now, to my specifics, G-36 and G-42. The G-36 is truly the red-headed, rented, stepchild of the family GLOCK. Zero “goodies” in aftermarket support. I’ve learned that some items that are advertised to be for other models and specifically not for G-36’s actually do fit and work, so, SKU and part numbers etc. for crosschecking fit/availability don’t tell the whole story.
Not finding any access to a ‘Models Available’ on any GADGET related site, the obvious question: do you guys have GADGETs for my kids (or yet?) … and if not now, or in the future, can I reasonably (got some skills) “mod” the plate’s (ie. outer) dimensions to make the “fit”?
Glad it’s finally happened for you(s), and now, for all those end-user beneficiaries down the road.
tiny printer — The Gadget works with all Glock models except the 42 and 43.
Regarding the 36, I specifically tested the Gadget on a 36 just this morning and it installed and functioned perfectly.
We are looking into making Gadgets for the 42 and 43.
Mr. Jones, (& company)
You ARE THEE man (no matter what they may say on some of those other dreadful sites … )
Thank you for the speedy reply and, what in effect turned out to be an exclusive stand-alone trial/test, highly appreciated on both counts. Way cool, guess me be ordering up one (or two if pre-orders could apply to the 42 [kidding … but not really]) via your neato and obviously effective crowd-share construct.
Like others, I’ve been following this since you guys first exposed it and watched its germination with anticipation and hopefulness. So glad to see it come to consumer fruition and provide an element of added safety to the old saw, “Perfection”.
“Thank You For Your Service” …. (to/for those that possess and carry, just to be safe(r).
P.S.: It’s not as if I visit your site every day to track the progress of the GADGET, came today via the Porch lady’s site and her still life photo/portrait. Ahhh … the company we keep … good choice of links …. .
What’s interesting is the “Monks” seem to come out even when things like design flaws which cause safety issues are involved. I was reading a thread about the Taurus Millennium drop safety issue and was surprised how many derpy posts there were suggesting that one should simply not drop the gun. Duh… but accidents do happen, so why have an unsafe design that only makes a potential problem worse?
Precisely, MichaelD. It’s like saying, “How hard can it be to become a millionaire? Just pick the right lottery number.”