Well, we will have to agree to disagree about that.
Moderating:
This is definitely not a pit thread. Don’t insult other posters. Only a note, but don’t do it again.
I know very little about guns. I’ve fired a few rifles and shotguns, and I think I fired a couple of handguns at a shooting range.
The question in the OP was, why does Glock put the safety in the trigger, right? The answer is, so that the trigger can only be pulled if you mean to pull it. So, it won’t accidentally fire when you drop it, and it seems like even snagging it on something perfectly would be quite unlikely.
Your question was answered several times in this thread.
I never thought about the purpose of gun safeties that much – the ones that I’ve handled are all trigger locks. But, it’s an interesting point that the most important function of a safety is to prevent you from accidentally firing the gun. I guess Glock assumes that, if your finger is on the trigger, you mean to fire it.
As someone who doesn’t shoot much, I’m really careful about keeping my fingers away from the trigger, and I never carry one in a holster or anything. I can see the point of a “normal” safety, that would prevent you from pulling the trigger accidentally when pulling a gun out of a holster, or stop a kid from pulling a trigger if the gun is left on the table.
Glock’s philosophy seems to be that if you’re pulling the trigger, you mean it. If it’s being pulled accidentally through a drop, it won’t go off.
If I were to get a gun, I would get one with a regular safety, which could mean that I’m delayed in shooting in some emergency situation. The Glock seems more appropriate for really experienced owners, who keep the gun in a safe place, and know how to pull it from a holster.
A little side note; these double trigger safeties are not just on Glocks any longer. My Ruger 57 bought a couple years ago has it, along with 1911 style thumb safties on either side.
It’s been a long time since I looked at new pistols. So this morning I visited websites for Beretta, S&W, Glock, and Sig. Yea, most models seem to have them.
Absolutely.
And to follow on the thread theme, they appear both on pistols with and without manual safeties. And at the same time there are pistols with plain triggers and without a manual safety. Something for everyone, I suppose (and the thing had been around well before Glock adopted it, they just were the first to really mass-market it).
I used to get a lot of gun “influencers” in my feed back in 2018-20 who spent a lot of time roundly deriding the manual safety as old fuddy-duddy tech. Either the algorithm has changed what it wants me to see or they’re quieter, but apparently it has been a bone of contention for a real long time.
I’ve been a shooter for 55 years. My bone of contention is that the trigger safety is not a safety. 'cause it’s not.
Again, it is a safety, but its purpose is to prevent the gun from firing if you drop it.
Without the trigger safety it is conceivable that, for some guns, the trigger could move back (due to momentum) if the gun falls on the floor and hits the back of the gun (grip/hammer area) first. A trigger safety would prevent this.
How likely would this be to happen? Am guessing very unlikely, else we would have heard about it more often before trigger safeties became a thing. Am also guessing the real reason for them is lawyers; without a trigger safety, a person who shoots an innocent person, either through negligence or attempted murder, might claim he dropped the gun, which caused it to fire and hit the person.
IMHO, I think we’re getting tied up in language. On the one hand, the trigger “safety” is being referred to by the manufacturers, and by a lot of users. On the other hand, compared to a “traditional” mechanical safety (no matter where mounted) it provides less assurance (and NO SAFETY IS 100%), so I get the cognitive dissonance when it’s referred to as such.
So, again, IMHO, there’s points to both sides.
I think there’s also a metric ton of different philosophies on the utility of a safety depending if it’s a range gun, a home defense gun, or a carry gun. For Me, Myself, And I, I have a home defense full size S&W M&P, with a magazine loaded, but no round racked. Figure having to rack the round gives me a moment to consider if it’s needed, so the safety or lack of is secondary (the revolver for my wife is unloaded but with a full quick loaded adjacent in the safe).
My rifles and range guns, all unloaded, all with safeties on. No need for rapid response of any sort.
My carry gun [M&P 9c] (which I no longer do) was in a discrete holder with full trigger guard protection (which is a must for me), round racked, and had no manual safety, though it had a variant of the trigger safety and a pin safety - but yeah, it did worry me on and off.
So again, lots of tradeoffs in storage, purpose, need for access, and features that may or may not be included in your firearm. Which is why it’s important to select the gun for your wants, needs, and comfort level - and not all variants are going to be “right” for an individual, no matter how popular they are.
Aside - at the time I was buying my semi-autos, I was torn between the Glocks and the M&P series, and the M&P won just because it felt better in my hand. Something about the classic Glock grip (with or without the adjustable grips) feels worse in the hand. YMMV of course.
Aaaaanyway…
The trigger safety was popularized by the Glock, and it’s a feature mostly (only?) found on other striker fired pistols. But there is no reason it has to be there. For example, the PSA Dagger has a lot of parts compatibility, but instead has a two-stage trigger.
Since this is IMHO now, OP’s wife should find a range that rents (or try yours/borrow some) to get a feel for what she likes. The historic thing has been to direct women towards revolvers because there’s no slide to work. Certainly that works for many women (and men) but it should not be default to assume a semi-auto won’t work. Or anything pink: many women like that, many don’t, it’s great to have options without a default.
@enipla’s already got that covered!
This is a factor in why my wife prefers the revolver - she did have a hard time with the slide on my 9mm and .40 S&W, though of course there are ways to make it more comfortable. I also think being able to buy .38 special which our OP can also use in his .357 when they practice together is a minor plus - IF that ends up being the proper choice after trying a few options.
I still don’t like revolvers for carry though - accuracy issues and the light weight models are painfully difficult for follow-up shots, at least in the caliber I prefer for such (.357).
Yeah. That’s where we are going to start. I also have a Rugar Mark II bull barrel target pistol. But that’s not a carry gun either. But we might try it on another trip to the range.
I showed my wife how a .38 will fit into a .357. But a .357 won’t fit into a .38. And why. I explained it was the length of the round (also you need a heavier frame). Explaining the name of the different rounds is pretty much a 
I’m thinking about a .38 and a .380 auto. But the .380 we looked at where a bit hard to rack. But I suspect they would loosen up a bit. I just would like my wife to have some options. Perhaps she doesn’t like shooting at all. That’s up to her.
But she brought it up. So… here we go.
But I think it’s more safe that she undersands guns.
It’s important to understand and not mystify them for pretty much everyone in modern USAian culture, that’s for sure. Especially, as you hinted about upthread, when there’s a bunch of poorly-if-at-all trained individuals operating them to threaten people with full support of the Executive.
It’s more important (as you acknowledged) if she’s going to practice with an additional !!! of emphasis if she decides to carry. Oh, just in case, updates to the Colorado CCW laws went into effect this past July (2025), so she’ll need a formal course with live practice and accuracy requirements if she wants to apply for one (and at renewal).
As for the firearm, if you want a .380 semi-auto, I’ve heard very good things about the M&P Shield EZ models, which are specifically made for those who are less able to handle a stiff slide.
Of course, I won’t claim to be unbiased on model preference, but it’s a specific option to address that concern, and it’s a good gun at a reasonable price at MSRP $469 with manual thumb safety (see, was paying attention!).
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/m-p-380-shield-ez-manual-thumb-safety
You are right, I was thinking of the fact that Glock claims to have three safeties. My mistake.
She want’s proffesional training and might as well get CCW. I think the coyote attack did that. And she would like to carry when hiking (a woman was just killed by a courgar).
I’ll probably get a CCW as well. But I think a .380 would be enough. And that might be a gun that my wife would prefer. I’m not gonna lug a 1911 .45 around.
In a weird sort of simile, my wife and I play darts at home. Hand eye accuracy. Muscle memory. We have two dogs and they are kept behind ‘the firing line’. Darts can bounce.
Good points.
And my advice has always been this: if you do not plan on going to the range and training on a regular basis, get a revolver. It takes a lot less “muscle memory” to effectively use a revolver vs. a semi-auto.
Caliber choice is a whole 'nother thread, though I’m a fan of 9mm, especially because it’s consistently available, and frequently on sale for $0.24 a round or so from quality manufacturers (Blazer Brass is my favorite cheap and cheerful round). Plus there’s a wide array of reasonably priced JHP and specialty options. .380 is generally at least 50% more cost-wise, though I’m positive you can afford it. But the better selection of rounds is something to consider. But on the other hand, .380 generates less flinching with my acquaintences, faster recovery with sights, and isn’t completely lacking in defensive loads.
But no matter the choice, as @Crafter_Man mentions, practice practice practice.
As for CCW - eh, I have to decide in another 20 months or so if I’m renewing mine… it’s not expensive, but I don’t anymore, and scheduling and paying for a refresher course seems like an effort too far for me (not arguing about the law) when I’m not carrying.
The “go to” is 9 mm. The are hundreds of models to choose from, ammo is cheap & plentiful, recoil is light, and it has plenty of stopping power. Smaller calibers seem attractive, but the guns are often so small & light that the recoil is “stinging,” and they’re not fun to train with. At any rate, always go with what you feel most comfortable with.
Right. You have to train. It cannot be painful to do so. That’s why on Monday, we are going to rent a .38 for my wife. I will have my .357 . I’ll let her feel the difference.
A small .38 though is still gonna have a lot of bark to it.