PDA

View Full Version : Are Glocks unsafe ?


Pages : [1] 2

mattro
August 29, 2007, 09:43 PM
from another thread: I also recommend some light reading or an armorers course to the "Glocks are unsafe" crowd.
"Sometimes I am amazed but usually just Disgusted"

I don't own a Glock, nor have I shot one. All my experience is with revolvers, 1911's and XD's.

Question: IF Glocks are so incredibly safe, then why do so me people shoot themselves with Glocks? It seems a much higher percentage than with other handguns.

Obviously the poeple shooting themselves are handling their gun carelessly and it is certainly the operators fault, not the gun's. But, the fact that the design of the gun lets the gun go off when someone is mishandling the gun in a minor way, when most other guns would not go off when handled the same, means to me they are unsafe.

Accidently pulling back on the trigger when pulling out of pants pocket, or pulling from holster - BANG !

Other gun designs (like 1911 or XD) will not go bang under the same handling due to the grip safety and the double trigger safety.

I have alot of friends that live and breathe Glocks. I know Glocks are reliable and accurate. I know they won't go off when dropped. But I have also spoke with a couple leo friends that have been on the force a long time and they know several instances where leos have shot himself with Glocks. Pulling fom holster, pulling from pants pocket, etc. They feel other handgun designs would not have resulted in ND's.

restlessnomad
August 29, 2007, 09:53 PM
I own a G19 and as far as I understand the 3 safeties eliminate discharge by impact or anything else other then your finger on the center of the trigger and a force applied to it. Basically if the trigger is not pulled, the guns not going to go off. Without an external safety you may put yourself at risk during a high stress situation, grabbing the weapon and pulling the trigger and putting a bullet through your thigh, or possibly your abdomen. I've seen a video of a LEO shooting himself in the foot w/ a G23 because he didn't check the chamber before he tried to "de-cock" the weapon.

easyG
August 29, 2007, 10:02 PM
I love Glocks but the more I think about it, there are only two things that make a Glock safe:

1) Keeping your finger off the trigger.

2) A good holster.

Glocks are very unforgiving of poor firearm safety practices.
And Glocks demand a good holster that prevents anything from getting in the trigger-guard.

I've carried a few different handguns in my pocket and some in my waistband (no holster), but NEVER a Glock!

So, to answer the question:

No, Glocks are not unsafe.
But they are very unforgiving of human error.

EEL92fs
August 29, 2007, 10:03 PM
Because they pulled the trigger?? Whatever happend to keep your finger off the trigger? Carrying a glock in your pocket?

I would say most of this is training problem.

http://www.genitron.com/glock23/intglock.html

This link shows the safty is the trigger...


Edit...
Dang it EasyG you said it better than me =)

Fremmer
August 29, 2007, 10:41 PM
why do so me people shoot themselves with Glocks?

Could be because so many people shoot glocks, and pulling the trigger (with a loaded chamber) during disassembly is bad. :D Check out the pics on Xavier's blog (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/11/from-email.html).

Baba Louie
August 29, 2007, 10:41 PM
Are revolvers unsafe?

Should you place a loaded revolver in your pants pocket and accidently pull back on the trigger when pulling it out of your pants pocket or pulling it from your holster - BANG!

Which coooould happen and probably has.

Perhaps a more legitimate fear is reholstering either a Glock or a revolver back into a holster that has a retention strap and the darned strap finds it's way inside the trigger guard applying rearward pressure... (and your mind is somewhere else for the moment but your finger is properly positioned outside of trigger guard) More than likely between those two choices the Glock might be more prone to discharge due to a somewhat lighter trigger weight.

The key is having your mind aware, your muscles trained and proper gear protecting the trigger.

Guns are dangerous. Stupid momentary lapses of reason can cause self inflicted pain. Safeties can fail. Fingers can slip.

So yes. Glock's ARE dangerous. Loaded guns are like that. Violate the first three rules of gun safety often enough and someone will get hurt sooner or later... I've been lucky so far.

Axion
August 29, 2007, 10:42 PM
While it would clearly be easier to accidentally pull the trigger on a Glock then on a DA gun if you practicing proper gun handling with either (finger out of the trigger guard) you'll be fine.

MTMilitiaman
August 29, 2007, 10:42 PM
...mishandling the gun in a minor way...

:eek:

This is why Glocks are unsafe--their operators are unsafe. There are no minor gun mishandlings. If you keep a constant state of vigilance, a Glock is perfectly safe. If you take the attitude that you "are the only one professional enough" or fail to treat it with respect, it is going to bite you.

I think of that video with the DEA agent in the classroom every time I handle my Glock and it reminds me that it, like all firearms, needs to be respected.

One could say Glocks are unforgiving. But I question whether this is a bad thing. Maybe a bullet to the foot will remind you to be more careful in the future.

A mechanical safety may be reassuring to some, but it is a poor excuse for lax behavior and unsafe gun handling practices. I don't rely on the safety of any of my firearms. A mechanical safety is not a crutch for me, so I don't have a problem with Glocks.

easyG
August 29, 2007, 10:52 PM
A mechanical safety may be reassuring to some, but it is a poor excuse for lax behavior and unsafe gun handling practices.
I agree.

One could say Glocks are unforgiving. But I question whether this is a bad thing. Maybe a bullet to the foot will remind you to be more careful in the future.
I disagree.

It is definitely a bad thing.
There's no getting around it....humans are fallible and they make mistakes.
A gun that is especially unforgiving of those mistakes might not be the best choice.

overkill556x45
August 29, 2007, 10:55 PM
I have had a G17 for about a year now. 2000+ rounds later I am looking to sell my SA 1911. Safety is in the eye (or more appropriately, the finger) of the beholder. If you are drawing or holstering your pistol with your finger on the trigger, you need some serious re-training.

Are Glocks dangerous by design? No more so than any other hand held thing that goes "bang". People used to make heated arguments against the 1911, and some still think that single action triggers are too dangerous. To each his own. I choose the Glock over the 1911 because of the lack of a manual safety. Come to think of it, my GP100 doesn't have a safety either. Of course it's trigger breaks at about 10lbs, and the Glock at about 4.5lbs.

Safety is all about proper training, and proper execution of that training in real life. Is one pistol "safer" than another? Not in my opinion, but as I said earlier, to each his own. If you don't think glocks are safe, don't get one.

Jason_G
August 29, 2007, 11:09 PM
I'm not the biggest fan of Glocks, but there is nothing about them that is any more unsafe than alot of revolvers or DAO pistols. In the hands of a safe shooter, there's nothing inherently dangerous about them. I don't think they make the wisest choice for first time shooters though.

Jason

44 AMP
August 29, 2007, 11:11 PM
Where the safety is part of the TRIGGER!

The things that always put me off from the Glock was never the plastic frame thing (although I do like to make fun of it), but the fact that the pistol had neither a safety lock (like the 1911), nor an exposed hammer. A decocker "safety" would have been ok, even a grip safety would make me feel better about it. No safety and an exposed hammer I can live with as well, although it is far from the best system for an autoloader.

I got an opportunity to spend some time on the range with a friend's Glock in .45 acp, and now I have a slightly different opinion.

I don't like the Glock trigger pull. Interestingly I had no trouble with the safety on the trigger, I hardly even noticed it. But the pull has horrendous. While not tremendously heavy (I was later told it was 8lbs), I found I had to pull, and pull, and pull some more before it fired. I didn't care for that. Other than the fact that the gun was bigger, it felt like the pull of a cheap Jennings .22.

I suppose if you know nothing about pistols and shooting, and are thoroughly trained on a Glock, you will find it ok, and likely do well with it. BUT, I have nearly 40 years of recreational shooting of DA/SA revolvers, DA & SA Autoloaders, and single shot handguns of many different types, and I found the Glock to be below my personal standards. If anything, I am disappointed. Everyone says they have good accuracy and fabulous functioning (and the gun I fired worked just fine, and was reasonably accurate for a service type pistol), so it seems that the only reason their designs has such a crappy trigger pull is that they chose to make it that way. How disappointing.

MyXD40
August 29, 2007, 11:14 PM
I own an XD and ofcourse at first, I was a bit concerned about the saftey. As some may not know, the XD has the grip saftey, and trigger saftey. And something in the manual said a drop saftey (if you drop the gun, it will not fire..?) ..anywho, I was a bit surprised when the XD didnt have a manual saftey. But overall, the main saftey of any gun, is the person holding it.

Silentarmy
August 29, 2007, 11:17 PM
Thank you Mattro for starting this thread on my behalf! I have found some common ground with EasyG as a result of this thread and I like that! Easy, I apologize if my postings to some of the other threads seemed Personal. We seem to see some things differently but I certainly agree with you on the Nature of safety in regards to Glock pistols! I like the way you put it as well. Difficult to argue with fact, while opinion can cause a hell of a stir. :o

downfall
August 29, 2007, 11:40 PM
Glocks are unsafe! As a previous poster mentioned, humans are fallible and make mistakes while a mistake with most items are easily rectified a mistake with a deadly weapon has serious consequences. Knowing this, why would Gaston put only one external safety on the pistol? then make the trigger pull 5.5lbs? then require that the trigger is pulled too allow take down of the pistol?

Revolvers, which the G17 replaced have a DA pull of around 12lbs and were much less susceptible to AD's. In addition Glock seems to have a reputation of denying there are any problems with their pistols even if it means that people are at risk as a result.

nate45
August 29, 2007, 11:52 PM
Glocks are unsafe! As a previous poster mentioned, humans are fallible and make mistakes while a mistake with most items are easily rectified a mistake with a deadly weapon has serious consequences.

For the love of Pete!

This is just like the Carry the 1911 unlocked thread.

The Glock is essentially like a 1911 in Condition 0.

A round chambered and the safety off.

It will not fire unless you press the trigger.

humans are fallible and make mistakes

The problem is not unsafe pistols it is unsafe operators.

Keep you finger off the trigger until ready to fire!

DonR101395
August 30, 2007, 12:04 AM
^^^^^+1^^^^^^

Just because Glock expects the consumer to not pull the trigger when they shouldn't doesn't make Glock anymore unsafe than any other firearm. I carried a series 70 1911 for close to 20 years before switching to Glocks. Many claim the series 70 to be unsafe, that's hogwash as well. Colt expects you to not drop it. IMHO neither expectation from Colt or Glock are unreasonable. YMMV

Thunderhawk88
August 30, 2007, 12:05 AM
I am not a Glock fan, but I do not believe that Glocks are any more unsafe that any other striker-fired semi-automatic pistol. The big secret to safety is in one of the BIG rules: Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire!

Silentarmy
August 30, 2007, 12:09 AM
"glocks are unsafe because people are fallible" Hmmm let me finish this one...
Pencils misspell words, Cars make people drive drunk, and Spoons made Rosie O'donnel FAT! Very interesting point of view indeed.....

JohnKSa
August 30, 2007, 12:29 AM
The Glock is essentially like a 1911 in Condition 0.Not really.

First of all, a Glock with a chambered round does not have enough stored energy to fire the round until the trigger is pulled, a 1911 in Condition 0 has enough energy stored in the main spring to fire the round.

Secondly, there are two objects preventing the Glock's firing pin from moving forward until the trigger is pulled (the firing pin safety and the sear--and the sear is locked in position by two items as well--the trigger safety and the safety ramp) , there is nothing restraining a typical 1911's firing pin from moving forward and in Condition 0 only the sear is preventing the hammer from falling.

A more analogous comparison would be comparing a Glock with a chambered round to a 1911 in Condition 1. Then you have the sear blocked and the hammer blocked. Even then the 1911 still has nothing restraining the firing pin and also has enough stored energy to fire the round while the Glock still has two items blocking the firing pin and does not have enough stored energy to fire the round.

gvf
August 30, 2007, 12:37 AM
If you're worried get a SAF-T BLOK, about $20, do a google search: a plastic insert that fits behind trigger precisely and is absolutely flat, does not protrude on either side. The whole right side of it is a button that, when pressed, springs it out of the way in 0.25 of a second if in an emergency. Move your finger a hair forward it's on the trigger. (or if the spring ever failed, just push the BLOK out). It's foolproof because it's the most rudimentary safety you could get for any gun - no mechanics (and they have them for some other brands): it's like having a big fat pencil stuck behind a trigger. You can also get (from Glock) heavier trigger springs cheap if you want a stronger trigger pull. Lastly, from other companies, an after market external safety is available - I think reasonably.

BUT: IF GLOCKS WERE UNSAFE HALF THE POLICE AGENCIES ON THE PLANET WOULD NOT BE USING THEM. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN REVOLVERS, WHERE THE TRIGGER-PULL WEIGHT PREVENTS ANYTHING BUT INTENTIONAL FIRING, AND THE GUN CANNOT BE FIRED ANY OTHER WAY BUT TRIGGER PULL. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO POINT AND SHOOT - AND SAFELY. THAT'S THE POINT

THEY ARE NOT UNSAFE - THEY HAVE EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD.

What you are referring to with accidental shootings were likely a few caused by another company's holster that was faulty - the action of putting the gun in the holster caused a few discharges because some weird retaining trigger device malfunctioned, causing the trigger to be pushed and not retained. The holsters were recalled. This had nothing to do with Glock. Stay away from holsters for any gun with mechanical devices is my view.

I'm in NY State. If you have any doubt, call the New York City Police Dept and/or the NY State Police who both use them for their duty guns, (as well as other NY cities) or pick from a large number of other US state, fed, depts. They're not unsafe. These people aren't stupid.

Silentarmy
August 30, 2007, 01:02 AM
Mattro started this thread because in another post/thread, I suggested an armorers course or some light reading for the "unsafe" crowd. I still stand by that suggestion! People get shot by Glocks accidentally due to "Human Error"! If one of you can site an actual incident that even shows "Mechanical error" than I will stand corrected but till that time.... Do some research on the matter (there are the coolest simple diagrams showing the way all 3 THREE Glock safety systems operate. There is NO stored energy in the Glock when in the "ready to fire position! The tiny spring that holds tension on the trigger bar is there to tension the trigger safety against the frame. I have been through these pistols in EVERY detail and on my Honor, I promise they cannot be fired without pulling the trigger!

TRIGGER SYSTEM
The “Safe Action” system is a partly tensioned firing pin lock, which is moved further back by the trigger bar when the trigger is pulled.
When the trigger is pulled, 3 safety features are automatically deactivated one after another. When doing so, the trigger bar is deflected downward by the connector and the firing pin is released under full load. When the trigger is released, all three safety features re-engage and the GLOCK pistol is automatically secured again.



TRIGGER SAFETY
As the first of the three GLOCK “Safe Action” safety features, the trigger safety prevents inadvertent firing by lateral forces on the trigger. Releasing the trigger will automatically reactivate the safety.

FIRING PIN SAFETY
The GLOCK firing pin safety is a solid hardened steel pin which, in the secured state, blocks the firing pin channel, rendering the igniting of a chambered cartridge by the firing pin IMPOSSIBLE. The firing pin safety is only pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing when the trigger is pulled and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar. Releasing the trigger will automatically reactivate the firing pin safety.

DROP SAFETY
In the line of duty it may happen that a loaded pistol is dropped on the floor. Contrary to conventional pistols, the GLOCK drop safety prevents unintentional firing of a shot through hard impact. When the trigger is pulled, the trigger bar is guided in a precision safety ramp. The trigger bar is deflected from this ramp only in the moment the shot is triggered.

LOADED CHAMBER INDICATOR
The user has always been able to read important parameters off his GLOCK pistol at a glance.
Trigger forward = safety activated.
Trigger pulled = safety deactivated.
The pistol also shows the user whether a cartridge is in the barrel or not. The extractor also serve as a loaded chamber indicator on all GLOCK pistols – and this entirely without additional components. Visual and palpable extractor edge.


If I could have provided the Diagrams, I certainly would have. I am Very educated in the Glock pistols and I am not expressing an opinion here. I am simply Trying to educate those who refuse to educate themselves! I will not even try to teach on a subject I do not have an instructors knowledge of!

MadMax2012
August 30, 2007, 01:13 AM
If you were to make an argument that they are more "unsafe" than other handguns.... it would have to be along the lines of:

1. They allow for VERY little human error before they will discharge (light trigger and short distance for trigger travel with no lever mounted trigger block safety)

2. The human born without error hasn't been found yet.


Those unable to do the math from there prove point #2.

JohnKSa
August 30, 2007, 01:28 AM
There is NO stored energy in the Glock when in the "ready to fire position!There's some. Glock says it's not enough to fire the gun, but the striker spring is compressed about half of it's total compression length by the slide action. The trigger pull does the other half of the compression.

Regarding human error. Based on a poll done on another forum, a whopping 70% of people who have an accidental discharge do so because they first intentionally put their finger on the trigger. Obviously the fact that the gun went off meant that they obviously deactivated any manual safeties first. (Gun defects/parts breakages were a separate response). In other words, in the vast majority of unintentional discharges a manual safety wouldn't have helped at all, the only thing that would have helped was not putting finger to trigger.

Trigger snags and accidentally getting a finger into the trigger guard accounted for only about 6% of accidental discharges.

These arguments usually focus on the 6% as being the big issue. They're not. The big issue is people who intentionally do something ill-advised. No amount of manual safeties can prevent that.

Silentarmy
August 30, 2007, 01:46 AM
I think Rosie Blames the spoon too!

MisterPX
August 30, 2007, 01:47 AM
They're Unsafe when handled by Unsafe shooters.

As far as more occurences:, they're more prolific than a lot of other models. What pick up truck has been in the most accidents? The Ford F series, why? Cuz Ford owners are dumb?:D No, because there's more of them on the road.

abarth
August 30, 2007, 02:02 AM
Something funny just came to mind, people rely on common sense to handle knife, because there are no safety. With gun many people rely on safety device instead of common sense.:)

MTMilitiaman
August 30, 2007, 02:28 AM
Glocks are unsafe! As a previous poster mentioned, humans are fallible and make mistakes while a mistake with most items are easily rectified a mistake with a deadly weapon has serious consequences. Knowing this, why would Gaston put only one external safety on the pistol? then make the trigger pull 5.5lbs? then require that the trigger is pulled too allow take down of the pistol?

How many external safeties should a firearm have? Just when a firearms designer thinks he's created an idiot proof system, the system creates a better idiot.

If you want a heavier trigger pull, Glock offers 8 and 11 pound triggers. "Problem" solved.

Adding a safety to a Glock would defeat the purpose. The weapon was designed from the ground up to be as simple as possible. Detailed, it has like 34 total parts. Simplicity yields reliability because the theory of probability tells us that the more parts there are (external safeties, grip safeties, magazine disconnects, ect.), the more things there are to go wrong.

It is harder making the pistol go off by accident than some would have you believe. And it isn't difficult to make it even more difficult. Put it in a holster that was designed for it. You don't have to buy a $100 Blackhawk thigh rig if you don't want. I have mine in an el cheapo Uncle Mikes. I used to carry it without the thumb break, but one day I was walking down some railroad tracks and I tripped on a tie that shifted as I stepped on it. The pistol went clattering across the rocks. It never went off, but I decided to carry it with the thumb break fastened from then on. I was worried the thumb break might get caught in the trigger guard and cause the pistol to go off while being re-holstered, so I cleared the pistol, triple checked the chamber, then spent about half an hour trying to slip the pistol in from every angle and intentionally cause it to fire while being re-holstered. With this particular holster, it proved nearly impossible. The angle required to even get the thumb break into the trigger guard is so awkward and unnatural that it wouldn't be feasible to imagine it ever occurring. And even with the thumb break in the trigger guard, I just couldn't get it alone to place enough force on the trigger to cause the pistol to go off. Is it possible? Probably. But unlikely enough that you would have to be either incredibly unlucky, or a very special kind of stupid.

This argument is retarded. There's always a better idiot to defeat any safeguard and it wasn't worth it to Glock to complicate his design to appease them. Most of the world's problems these days come from stupid people being allowed to continue polluting the gene pool. Maybe if these morons start shooting reproductive organs off by pulling pistols with their finger on the trigger, it will give humanity a fighting chance...

At any rate, if you don't trust yourself with a Glock, don't own one. It's that simple.

MyXD40
August 30, 2007, 02:46 AM
all this safe talk. Honestly. It's stressfull. A gun really doesn't require a saftey. And if you feel the need to have one, do you REALLY think you should have a gun? I mean, you're only going to pull the trigger if you're at the range, or your going to shoot somoene..you play with your gun THAT much that you'd need a saftey? My XD only has one physical saftey, the grip. (I dont really believe in trigger saftey, or why it was even made..I can't see being effective). But I'm confident in myself enough, that even tho theres one in the chamber, and 12 in the mags, I know my gun is never a toy, and should only be held when at range, or when life threating event is to accure. Or if I'm cleaning it, or taking itout of holster to go into safe :cool:

But hey, in the end, I think honestly, we should have a saftey on our toasters! what if we accidently push down on the handle and the toaster comes on, it oculd catch something on fire!!

Silvanus
August 30, 2007, 04:47 AM
Haven't read through the whole thread yet, but that phrase shocked me first, then made me laugh:

when someone is mishandling the gun in a minor way

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Is pulling the trigger unintentionally "minor" mishandling of a gun? What is major if I may ask you? Putting a cartridge in a vise and hitting it with a hammer?


And by the way, I think Glocks are perfectly safe.

The Body Bagger
August 30, 2007, 05:11 AM
Glocks are safe, Glocks however are not idiot proof.

Nevertoomanyguns
August 30, 2007, 05:23 AM
No Glocks are as safe as the next pistol, the owners are unsafe. I've owned 2 glocks,(G22 and G27), and carry a glock 27 for ccw for the last eight years and have never had an issue. Remeber treat every gun as if it were loaded always point it in a safe direction and by god check and make sure the gun is empty before you clean it, handle it or pass it to someone else.

mattro
August 30, 2007, 05:31 AM
when someone is mishandling the gun in a minor way

It struck me as a really stupid thing to say when I typed it. But I was too tired, or too dim to think of a better way to word it. Please concentrate on the premise, not my inteligence.

Basically I'm thinking misdemeanor negligent handling, instead of felony negligenct handling. Any poor handling is bad, but having the trigger slapped inadvertently while unholstering or reholstering, etc. I've seen poor handling where the guy deserved to shoot himself, then I've seen poor handling where it should not have made the gun go off.

The leo with the glock in the pocket had put it in his front pocket because all he had on was sweat pants, off duty, going to get carry out pizza for his family. He had his wallet and gun in his front pocket. He was fumbling around for his wallet and BANG, a shot to the thigh.

Not very bright to have the gun there, but it wasn't what I would consider grave negligence.

So, in cases like this, is the Glock more likely to go off unintentionally?

Good responses on this one...

vp40p5m
August 30, 2007, 05:53 AM
My first glock (17) was a gift in the mid 80's. Sense then I have bought nearly every model that came out. I always have the trigers replaced and the pull adjusted to around 2 lbs. I'm a veteran and a CA bail agent that carries ccw most of the time.
Never had an accidental discharge. Safety first please.

easyG
August 30, 2007, 05:58 AM
"glocks are unsafe because people are fallible" Hmmm let me finish this one...
Pencils misspell words, Cars make people drive drunk, and Spoons made Rosie O'donnel FAT!
I understand your point, and I even agree somewhat, but.....

Pencils have erasers for a very good reason....because the pencil maker knows that humans make mistakes.

And cars have come a long way to be more forgiving of human error....
Remember when you could actually start an automatic while it was in "drive" and your foot was on the gas pedal?
Who knows how many injuries could have been prevented....

Remember the days before safety-glass, when jagged shards of glass sliced up folks during wrecks?
Remember when the steering column wasn't designed to collaspe, and folks were impaled on it during wrecks?
Remember the days before the engine was designed to drop under the occupants in case of a head-on collision, instead of landing in their laps?
Who knows how many lives might have been saved....

A table-saw does not NEED a blade-guard so long as the operator is very careful....but I still X-ray folks every year who have removed or disabled the guard on their saw....many lose their fingers.:(

Now that I"ve thought more about it....
Why does Glock and XD even have the trigger-safety?
After all, if all you have to do is keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, then bother with the trigger-safety in the first place?
Why not just create a DAO pistol with a 4 lb. trigger?

gvf
August 30, 2007, 07:28 AM
(Re: trigger safety need: trigger safety is there so the gun will ONLY fire with a trigger pull, not when dropped etc., it's like a revolver. It releases a safety already on.)

If someone is highly anxious about ADs, one option is not to CCW, not that that is a guarantee but it cuts down on time you're around the gun. It's like driving though, most accidents are caused by driver error, and you can have mechanical aids to help avoid mistakes, but...... it's ultimately you and the other driver. Guns are safer, (absent a felon and you in a gun fight), it's just you you need to concern yourself with. If you drive you already accept a far greater chance of serious accident than using a gun. But if carrying a gun, or even ranging one, drives one to distraction -attempting some impossible quest for absolute safety - buy pepper-spray or a big stick. I'm serious. I carry a gun because I feel much easier around those dark streets out there; but if I was thinking all the time about an AD, I wouldn't bother. I'd be more of a nervous wreck than the BGs make me.

k8do
August 30, 2007, 08:12 AM
I need - no I demand - that all of you concerned about Glock safety go out and sell your Glocks, right now, every one of them!

I expect to be able to buy a barely used Glock for $100 within weeks, if not days... There are a number of models I want to add to my arsenal... SO all of you whiners get out there and do what is right..

Sell that *&%^$(#@ GLOCK, NOW!

Silvanus
August 30, 2007, 08:35 AM
So, in cases like this, is the Glock more likely to go off unintentionally?

If he pulled the Glock trigger all the way, it is likely that he would have pulled a DA pocket-revolver trigger too. So I still think it's a safe gun.

And I also think that it was pretty stupid of the guy that he had the gun and the wallet in the same pocket and fumbled around like nothing could happen. LEO or not that was just dumb.

I don't know if I even believe all the horror stories with the sub-compact Glocks going off in the pocket. The trigger is lighter than on a DA pistol/revolver, but it's not THAT light. There's also the trigger safety so it can't go off if you just slip on the edge of the trigger. Your finger would have to be inside the trigger guard (where it shouldn't be in the first place).

Officer's Match
August 30, 2007, 08:51 AM
My G23 is extremely unsafe (for any that would do harm to me, my family, or my work staff).

Thunderhawk88
August 30, 2007, 09:54 AM
If your Glock is too unsafe for you, trade it in and get an airsoft. :rolleyes:

omaha64
August 30, 2007, 10:21 AM
Question: IF Glocks are so incredibly safe, then why do so me people shoot themselves with Glocks? It seems a much higher percentage than with other handguns.

Did you find this in a study of some sort? Do you mind sharing this data?

mattro
August 30, 2007, 10:47 AM
The data comes from speaking with a leo. This particular leo is the Sheriffs son of the capitol county, he is now running for sherrif and is a real upstanding knowledgeable person.

He shared with me how multiple (at least 4 or 5) leo's have shot themselves with their glocks in the last couple of years. He thought that was a rather high number of accidents, and he thought the design of the gun 'contributed' (not caused) the accidents. He said there has been multiple ND's at the police training academy.

I'm not hear to support or bash the Glock. I'm not hear to say someone handled their gun smart or stupid. I am just curious to get input from alot of people that know ALOT more about Glocks than I do.

I think the G36 is about as cool as it gets. Alot of power in a very small reliable package!

I think the comments ragarding more Glock accidents due to more Glocks out there is very true.

But I don't subscribe to the 'guns dont need safeties cause people should be careful' crowd. I think it is smart to use the safest weapon possbile, as long as the safeties are unobtrusive. That is like saying a seat belt or air bag will never come in handy if you are a careful driver. not true.

I believe in using my safety on my 1911, and on my shotguns and rifles.

Having a few safeties to 'cushion' the human error, or inadvertant mistake (shirt tail stuck in holster), is smart.

I think easyg's comments paralleling to improvements in car safety are excellent and very pertinent.

deadin
August 30, 2007, 11:19 AM
Face it, Glocks aren't as 'foolproof' [with the emphasis on 'fool'] as some other guns. I remember when Glocks first came out there were a number of AD's due to the design of the box they came in. It had a projection that came up through the trigger guard to hold the gun firmly in place when in the box. Guess what happened when some 'fool' tried to put a loaded one back in the box.

Cremon
August 30, 2007, 11:23 AM
Glocks are good guns. The only reason I don't and won't own one is because I never liked plastic framed guns to begin with. They don't feel right in my hand. But that doesn't change the fact that Glock makes very reliable semi automatic firearms, and they fit some people very well.

My stance on the safety thing is the same as MTMilitiaman's.

Whirlwind06
August 30, 2007, 11:35 AM
Could it be that there a ton of Glocks being bought by a bunch of people that don't read the manual or bother to take a NRA basic pistol class?

JoeBlackSpade
August 30, 2007, 11:55 AM
There are many stories about negligent discharges while handling Glocks.

In my opinion, Glocks are not "unsafe", however the lack of a decock-style safety means that someone who is careless is more likely to shoot himself or others, than if that person was handling, say, a Beretta 92FS, or even a Smith & Wesson Sigma.

MTMilitiaman
August 30, 2007, 12:16 PM
I need - no I demand - that all of you concerned about Glock safety go out and sell your Glocks, right now, every one of them!

I am sure we could find volunteers to help them dispose of their unsafe pistols.

I got first dibs on a 3rd Gen 29 and 30!

Remember the days before safety-glass, when jagged shards of glass sliced up folks during wrecks?
Remember when the steering column wasn't designed to collaspe, and folks were impaled on it during wrecks?
Remember the days before the engine was designed to drop under the occupants in case of a head-on collision, instead of landing in their laps?
Who knows how many lives might have been saved....

My mom is dead now because of those crumple zones and safety features. If she had been in my 76 F150, airbags wouldn't have knocked my dad unconscious when they hit a deer, and they wouldn't have had a head-on with a snow plow. So forgive me if I am a little but skeptical of the "safety is progress" speal.

redblair
August 30, 2007, 12:26 PM
I don't own a Glock, I've just shot them at the range. The trigger pull is fairly light and short, compared to a traditional DA auto. So if someone isn't following the basic safety rules, like way too many people, then there may be more AD's. Again if the rules are followed it shouldn't be an issue.

B

easyG
August 30, 2007, 12:42 PM
My mom is dead now because of those crumple zones and safety features. If she had been in my 76 F150, airbags wouldn't have knocked my dad unconscious when they hit a deer, and they wouldn't have had a head-on with a snow plow. So forgive me if I am a little but skeptical of the "safety is progress" speal.
I'm feel sad for your lost, but If I have learned anything working in a hospital ER for over eight years it's this:
You can't save everyone.
No matter how safe we try to make our world, sometimes people die.

Some folks drown even while wearing a life-vest.
But that does not negate the fact that life-vests save thousands of folks around the world every year.
Just as airbags save thousands of folks every year.

mattro
August 30, 2007, 12:43 PM
MTMilitiaman, sorry to hear that happened to your mom. that really REALLY sucks!

Cremon
August 30, 2007, 01:08 PM
MTMilitiaman - I am sorry to hear about your mother. I lost mine when I was 16 to a brain aneurism. You never accept it, but over time, you grow accustomed to it.

tlm225
August 30, 2007, 01:19 PM
Glocks unsafe? You bet they are. If you pull the trigger (intended or not), they're going to go off.



But then again, that's what a gun is supposed to do isn't it?:)

Manedwolf
August 30, 2007, 01:21 PM
It is, however, a truth that's hard to deny that Glocks absolutely lead the field in the number of NDs that occur.

Personally, I don't think the trigger safety is "safe". Too many ways something can get in the holster, or that it can bump on something. The number of NDs support that idea.

Also, you have to pull the trigger to take the gun down for disassembly, another thing that's led to Glock NDs.

At one time, people thought a lap belt only in a car was safe, too. Now we know better.

gvf
August 30, 2007, 02:45 PM
Dry firing in a safe direction prevents accidents while cleaning. Putting a bore light in the chamber while pointing the gun at a mirror first is my habit. You can see back to the firing pin. BUT: I always dry fire into a large mound of dirt covered by wood beams (a huge tree-planter on my property). I'd do both with any semi-a.

Socrates
August 30, 2007, 03:02 PM
MTMilitiaman, sorry to hear that happened to your mom. that really REALLY sucks!
:eek::( Me to. I'm going through something similar, but, it's related to a brain tumor she had removed, and, a decay of brain functions. Living dead...:barf::mad:

Now back to Glocks. What amazes me is that with the number of Glocks, there aren't MORE ND's, and, that Glock avoids lawsuits on the issue. When you think about it, most guns do have some sort of safety built in that does more then a Glocks, and, the industry standard is some sort of safety, like a grip safety, etc.

I have yet to buy a Glock, mainly because I can't get by having that heavy a trigger, though I'm learning. I'm also concerned, in that for CCW, I would like a gun with a loaded round in the chamber, and, that I just kick the safety off, or just pull the trigger. My 360PD resembles that, now that the lock is gone.

Now, what Glocks do offer is cheap parts, reliability, except for the G36, light weight, and, a magazine capacity that can't be beat. In other words, not having the safety may well be worth the extra 10 oz the XD weighs.

Is it worth having no safety, to speak of, in a gun that costs 500 dollars, carries 10 rounds, and weighs 20 oz, Glock 26/27, or that has more punch per oz then anything on the market, the 29 in 10 MM, and, the 30 converted to Super?

At self-defense ranges, I think it is. And, for some strange reason, people can shoot the guns quickly, and, apparently they can be VERY accurate.

Guns are trade offs, and, it seems everything in the gun world is a trade off.

Glocks, to me, would be perfect if they could add a safety either grip, or slide, prior to shooting. However, they do have a removeable safety: that block you put behind the trigger prior to holstering, and then knock out when you have to draw the weapon. So, while it's not an elegant solution, you do have a way to stop ND's on pulling, or putting the gun away. when you think about it, the trigger block can't weigh but a .5 oz, and, solves the Glocks only real problem.

S esq.

mattro
August 30, 2007, 03:14 PM
Socrates, if a nice trigger is high on your priority list, it is hard to beat a 1911. Growing up I did alot of competition shooting so I got used to nice triggers. When I decided to get serious about tactical and sd, I quickly decided a nice trigger was critical to me. So, I sold my XD and bought a nice 1911. I have been very happy.

My XD was flawless and great to shoot, but I wanted a pristine trigger.

The 1911 definetely has it's drawbacks, but I overall I love mine.

MTMilitiaman
August 30, 2007, 03:29 PM
You guys in the anti-Glock crowd have got to pick a side. We have the Glock being accused of having too heavy of a trigger to shoot properly and too light of a trigger to be safe in the same thread.

Either way, you can put two different weight of "New York" triggers in them if they are too light to suit your tastes, or a 3.5 pound disconnecter if you feel they are too heavy. It will probably never been a tuned 1911 trigger, but as a combat trigger, the Glock is very good, esp if you train yourself to only release the trigger to the reset for subsequent shots. The trigger pull from reset is very short and very crisp, at least on every Glock I've ever handled or shot.

longeyes
August 30, 2007, 03:36 PM
I'm a big Glock fan but, frankly, I'd like the Glock better if it had a (conventional) safety, I admit. Maybe I wouldn't use it most of the time but sometimes I might; I'd like to at least have that option. I do have two Saf-T-Bloks, and that is one way to eliminate the problem if keeping the gun properly holstered doesn't suffice.

Cliff47
August 30, 2007, 03:52 PM
Any way you cut it, the best safety is the one between the ears, providing you use it.

Socrates
August 30, 2007, 04:04 PM
Socrates, if a nice trigger is high on your priority list, it is hard to beat a 1911.
Exactly. You mean like this, with about 90% Ed Brown parts, tuned by Jack Huntington for 45 Super?;)
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/KIMBER.jpg
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/KIMBERRIGHT.jpg

mattro, I'm glad you brought that up, so I could go through it.:D
Here was my brief try at a snubby 45
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/Familyportrait3.jpg

The Kimber Ultra Carry II I got was a good one. Had Jack set it up to shoot 45 Super, stiff springs, and sold it to a forum member here for a song for what I had in it.

Here's my take on the 1911, and why I think Glocks are the way to go.

First, 45 ACP REALLY likes a 4, or 4.25" barrel, so, you are after either a Commander sized gun, or, better for CCW, a CCO. The CCO's are scarce, and expensive. If you get an alloy frame, it better run right off, because if you ramp the gun, it takes away the outside of the alloy, the hardest part, and, eventually, if you shoot the gun a lot, you end up
having to put an insert in the gun for the feedramp. Orion is doing this to the gun I sold him.
S&W has yet to make a Scandium CCO sized 1911, but, they have external extractors, not my favorite.

Now, the reason for selling the Ultra Carry is although it was 100% reliable, if you put it next to a commander, or full sized gun, you can see the difference in tolerances. There just isn't as much room for things to happen, and, the timing, and springs have to be changed more often, and, well, just think of it like a Ferrari. When they are tuned and tight, nothing like em. But, they are much more likely, due to the high tuning, to go out of tune then a Detroit car. Essence is, if you have a small block chevy or Ford producing 1 horsepower per cubic inch, it's tuned to tight tolerances, and, it is more likely to break down. If it's producing .5 horsepower for each cubic inch, it will run forever, all else equal. Same with the UC sized guns. Springs die faster, and, you just don't have as much room for error in feeding as the full-sized guns.

Also, the beavertail, which I don't need, keeps sticking me in the stomach, the way I carry it. And, you can't replace all the MIM parts with forged Ed Brown or Wilson stuff, because the Commander is about the smallest size that they make that stuff for.

Yes, it was a nice, powerful, light package, but, for the above reasons, not what I want to bet my life on.

So, I'm after a 4" barrel, 45 caliber, or at least 40,
good trigger, and, the gun has to be light. I could go with a
stainless Detonics Combat Master VI, but it also lacks a grip safety, and, it's heavy in thunderwear. Doesn't have a beavertail, which is good.

Now, the problem is, the gun you are looking for is fairly rare, CCO size, and the prices are pretty steep. I've almost picked up an alloy commander from Kimber, and, another stainless model, but, when push comes to shove, they aren't much different in size, for the way I carry, from my full sized gun.
Why bother?
It really needs to be a CCO, and, they don't grow on trees.

Now, the Glocks are blocky, and a bit thick, but, I have big hands, and, they are lighter, and smaller then the 1911's. Yes, the trigger sucks. But, the barrels on the 30/29 at 3.78 give you ballistics with jacketed bullets equal to a 4-4.25" in a CCO. they are cheap, and, if I ever have to use the gun, since my police chief hasn't issued a CCW in 30 years, it's going into an evidence locker for a long time.
Also, the 26 gives you near 357 type numbers with 9mm, i.e. with 125 grain bullets, consistent 1200 fps, and, that only weighs 20 oz.

At combat ranges, the trigger isn't as much of an issue.

The only reason I haven't bought a Glock is I have my little
357 360PD, and, with a bigger grip, it weighs 10 oz less then even the loaded 26, even though it's only 5 rounds, instead of 10. It gives similar ballistics to the 26, but with heavier bullets, in .357.

So, the bottomline is, the 1911 that would be what I'm after is expensive, relatively rare, and, if used, would be gone. Glocks, 29/30, carry more rounds, 10, max in Kali,
are built like brick houses, and, with a 30 dollar spring kit, will shoot 45 Super, and, a barrel change might also be a good idea, but not a necessity.

Another, slightly nagging alternative is a S&W airweight,

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/150132_large.jpg
Maybe a 60, 24 oz, but the longer barrel would be great, and, I could use a speedloader(s) the same for both guns.
Or, get a used 38 Plus P for around 300-400, and have two guns, 5 rounds in each gun, still cheaper then buying a new Glock. Plus, with the longer grip, the scandium gun 360PD
is just a hair too long for pocket carry. The grip sticks out, and, you could be made.
With a 38 special, you can shoot it with those little boot grips that come on the gun, and still control it.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to move, so spending is on hold...

S esq.

mattro
August 30, 2007, 04:18 PM
I'm cleaning the drool of my keyboard from the pictures.

Excellent logic on all accounts. Nice to see someone very knowledgable.

FLA2760
August 30, 2007, 04:27 PM
Easy G wrote
"I love Glocks but the more I think about it, there are only two things that make a Glock safe:

1) Keeping your finger off the trigger.

2) A good holster."


+1.
I would never carry a Glock in a bellyband rig due to the 5.5lb trigger.
I only carry my G27 in good leather rigs.However; I still carry my Smith snubby in a bellyband when I run. :cool:

IdahoG36
August 30, 2007, 04:30 PM
It is not the GLOCK's fault, just the idiots who do not practice safe gun handling. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you intend to fire the weapon. It really is that easy. I have owned 3 GLOCKs, and fired countless rounds through them, and I have never had an accidental discharge.

Officer's Match
August 30, 2007, 05:40 PM
Socrates,
After kicking it around with you these last few weeks, I really think a 29 with a 3.5# trigger is the rig for you. If the trigger feels too light for "safety" (not that it would for you, mind you), than this should put minds at ease. http://www.lonewolfdist.com/images/products/LWD-SIDER.jpg

Socrates
August 30, 2007, 06:06 PM
Thanks OM, I do too. :D

My problem is, if I go with the 29, I have to buy about 1000 rounds of double tap ammo, and various other stuff from Double Tap, to get free shipping, like Just the thing for your home 375 H&H Magnum defense rifle:
235 grain Barnes TSX
Ballistics : 3100fps - 5014 ft./lbs. - 24.0" bbl. Winchester Model 70.

I actually don't see much point in the 29, when I could go with the 30, switch springs, and fire 45 Super out of it, or, for that matter, the outstanding 230gr. Speer Gold Dot JHP
Ballistics : 1010fps/ 521 ft./lbs. - 5" 1911 that expands to .95", and penetrates about 15.5", IIRC, from Double Tap.

I LIKE that safety trigger. I gather you just have to push the pin through, and then the trigger works?

S esq.

kristop64089
August 30, 2007, 06:44 PM
I'm more worried about carrying my xd then a glock. (I didn't realize it was only SA with grip safe, thought trigger completed FP pull.:()

MTMilitiaman
August 30, 2007, 06:59 PM
No the Glock is held at about 60% IIRC, and the trigger pull completes the other 40%.

The XD is held at about 98% and the trigger pull only completes about 2%.

At least I think I remember reading that somewhere...

kristop64089
August 30, 2007, 07:03 PM
Thats what I mean....Glocks trigger does alot more work than the XDs

Good thing the XD has always Been a HD/truck gun

CritRxDoc
August 30, 2007, 08:54 PM
People get hurt because they become COMPLACENT. Keep your finger off the trigger and all will be fine

easyG
August 30, 2007, 09:17 PM
It is not the GLOCK's fault, just the idiots who do not practice safe gun handling. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you intend to fire the weapon. It really is that easy. I have owned 3 GLOCKs, and fired countless rounds through them, and I have never had an accidental discharge.
Well, you know there's an old saying in the biker community.....

There are only two types of bikers:

There are those who have wrecked their bike.

And there are those who WILL wreck their bike.

;)

kristop64089
August 30, 2007, 09:18 PM
about ten years ago I had to go to a state driving class, and the only thing I took away from there was this "there are no such things as car "accidents" only car "collisions"

they claimed tha all "accidents" can be prevented when driving, and that the accident happens when, one of the drivers fails to pay attention. I believe that this is true

Same as a gun(any gun) as gun owners we are to be RESPONSIBLE, if your gun AD/ND's it is your fault and noone elses. whether it is do to lack of maintanence,ignorance,neglegence, it is your fault.

(my soapbox opinion of course)

Dragoneye
August 30, 2007, 09:23 PM
Glock produces a great gun but is lacking in the safety department. On the other hand, there are more Glocks in the field than any other plastic gun out there so the odds are definetely not in its favor. Since safety is your main concern, I recommend a Springfield Armory XD in any caliber. I love my XD .45 5" Tactical. Safe, accurate and reilable as it gets for a plastic gun. I have owned Glocks, prefer the XD, just personal perference. Better price than the Glock too.

JimmyHoffa
August 30, 2007, 09:26 PM
It's funny how the Glock haters come out of the woodwork when someone posts an idiotic topic. ALL GUNS ARE UNSAFE WHEN A CARELESS PERSON HANDLES IT. The reason Glocks have more issues with AD is because more people buy them period. How many people own an XD or M&P not even half as many Glocks. What happens with a DA revolver when you pull the trigger ? IT GOES BANG! Are those dagerous too tree huggers?

Officer's Match
August 31, 2007, 12:06 AM
Socrates:
"I LIKE that safety trigger. I gather you just have to push the pin through, and then the trigger works?"

Yes, and it's reversible for lefties. High quality feel - better than stock IMO. Very positive actuation, not at all likely to be unintentionally engaged/disengaged. Main drawback in some people's minds is having to touch the trigger to deactivate safety, but if you're used to it, what could be faster/easier to use at GO-TIME. It's 54.95 at Lone Wolf. http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=4783

Edit: It's also a non-permanent modification, and yes, I'm getting one for my 23 (when I remember to order it).

exprt9
August 31, 2007, 12:52 AM
It's not the gun that's unsafe! It's the people that use it without the proper safety training and lack trigger discipline! Keep that trigger finger off the trigger until ready to shoot! Use a holster that covers the trigger or just like some other poster said, use a trigger block safety! I did, but I don't use it anymore!

Socrates
August 31, 2007, 01:33 AM
Doctor's are unsafe. They kill over 100k people a year through malpractice. How many ND's from Glocks are there?
2 a year, on a bad year?

Anyone have figures?
How many times has Glock been sued successfully for a poor design?

S J.D.

givo08
August 31, 2007, 08:08 AM
how is a glock less safe than an M&P or sig (especially DAK trigger) or HK LEM, or DA revolver with trigger pull lightened to 6-8 lbs, etc? Every single one of those will result in an ND just as easily as a glock if the owner does the same "mis-handling."

Manedwolf
August 31, 2007, 08:33 AM
It's funny how the Glock haters come out of the woodwork when someone posts an idiotic topic. ALL GUNS ARE UNSAFE WHEN A CARELESS PERSON HANDLES IT. The reason Glocks have more issues with AD is because more people buy them period. How many people own an XD or M&P not even half as many Glocks. What happens with a DA revolver when you pull the trigger ? IT GOES BANG! Are those dagerous too tree huggers?

Funny, S&W has been selling revolvers for most of the last century, and I'd bet you the number of NDs is still far less on average than Glocks.

So what if the NDs are caused by "accidents"? It's just too easy to ND with them, thus, they're a failure of human engineering, IMO.

Hard Ball
August 31, 2007, 09:32 AM
The Glock prechambering detonation failure (AKA KABOOOM) is very dangerous and unique to Glocks,

Manedwolf
August 31, 2007, 09:40 AM
Well, that incident, the ka-booms, was, AFAIK, caused by the earlier models not properly supporting the cases. An old Glock in .40 S&W is indeed dangerous and should not be used.

They've fixed that problem now, but only because Gaston got kicked pretty hard for it with legal threats.

RsqVet
August 31, 2007, 11:54 AM
I don't get it, the arguments agains glocks here are somethign like the arguments to raise the driving age because 16 year olds have the most accidents... NO new drivers have the most accidents.

Glock is at what 80% LE market share?

The popularity of Glocks is why there are so many ND's, heck, here in AZ in may shops a "new" shooter who goes to buy a gun is almost guaranteed to come home with a glock.


I can remember back in the day before automatic pitols were more common or popular (when a smith revolver was in about 85% of LE holsters) many spoke of how "dangerous" they were because many ND's occured by morons who removed a mag and failed the clear the chamber... the revolver was considered VASTLY safer because you opend the cylinder and had to be pretty dumb to not fully clear the weapon.

Again it's not the weapon... it's training and knowing how to use the weapon... I understand the human engineering thing.... but it's not what is at play here... clear the gun and keep your finger off the trigger... to argue otherwise is to say what? We should all have DAO guns with 12 pound triggers?... Anyone ever shoot one of these? No thanks...

rellascout
August 31, 2007, 12:30 PM
Wow is it that time of the month again where we have to have this meaningless debate.

I cannot believe that people still engage this debate.

Rellascout

MTMilitiaman
August 31, 2007, 12:53 PM
Ahh, now we get into the kBs, with an interesting twist; I've never had someone actually be stupid enough to presume kBs were unique to Glock.

I've seen or read about kBs happening in pretty much every popular defensive handgun out there including HKs (hang out on HKPro and you'll see them), 1911s, some revolvers, even a Desert Eagle. KBs are most certainly not unique to Glock's, or IMO, even disproportionately more common.

The first kBs in Glock .40 S&W were attributed as much to ammunition as to the chamber design of the pistols. Federal acknowledged this and strengthened their cases. To this day, the majority of kBs you see with a handgun of any design can be traced to poor handloading.

Glock doesn't have an unsupported chamber. It is a little loose, but really not any more unsupported than a factory 1911 chamber. Glock left the chambers as loose as SAAMI would allow them to make them more reliable and less sensitive to grit build up or differences in cartridge external dimensions between different brands of ammunition. They weren't thinking of the reloader, and few, if any, manufactures these days do. I have access to an HK USP and a Glock with a factory and aftermarket barrel. Later this evening when I have access to a digital camera, I'll post some comparison pics if someone doesn't beat me to it.

The 10mm Auto has a max average pressure limit of 37,500 PSI. The .40 S&W has a maximum average pressure of 35,000 PSI. If it was simply a matter of case support, why would the .40 S&W Glocks establish the reputation of blowing up, and not the 10mm Autos? Heck the .357 SIG Glocks are simply Glock .40s with drop in barrels, and the .357 SIG has a maximum average operating pressure of 40,000 PSI. You hardly ever hear of .357 SIG Glocks kBing.

Mike McNett of Double Tap Ammunition used a completely stock Glock 20 to develop his 10mm loads, and fired thousands of rounds in the process with no issues.

I put an aftermarket KKM barrel in my Glock 20 when I started reloading out of concern for case life more than safety. The cases do bulge significantly in the stock Glock barrel, but this is not a problem if you don't plan on using those cases again. The Glock will handle a steady diet of the hottest loads on the market for a specific cartridge, provided they adhere to SAAMI specs instead of being glorified Bubba Gun Show reloads some companies are offering under the guise of +P, which doesn't exist for any of the three cartridges I've mentioned; the .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and 10mm Auto.

If you try to turn your pistol into something it is not, if you refuse to acknowledge its limitations and the limitations of the cartridge, then turning a good handgun into a fragmentation grenade is a fault of the operator. A .40 S&W has never been, is not now, and will never be a 10mm Auto. If you try to turn it into one, you're going to run into problems regardless of how much case support you have, and anyone with a brain is just going to grin and nod as you describe how your POS Glock blew apart your hand because you were using the latest super-atomic +P nuke rounds instead of common sense. Some with less discretion than me might suggest you let your mangled digits remind you stupidity is painful.

Hard Ball
August 31, 2007, 02:02 PM
I.m sorry I'm so stupid so explain just how a 1911 can Have a PRECHAMBERING DETONATION KABOOM.

FS2K
August 31, 2007, 02:09 PM
They are not unsafe.

Wiskey_33
August 31, 2007, 02:13 PM
Yea,
extreamly unsafe...that's why all the LEO's carry them...if your an idiot, yea, they're unsafe....in that case, you don't need a firearm in the first place.

Socrates
August 31, 2007, 02:17 PM
Thanks. This has been productive. MTMilitiaman, thank you for the information. Makes me want to get an aftermarket, tighter chambered barrel, because I would like to be able use my brass again, without having to really work on it to resize.

Hardball: My old Detonics Combatmaster VI had a fully supported, tight chamber. Every once in awhile I'd get a case that was bulged a bit. What would happen is the gun wouldn't quite get all the way into proper position before the firing pin hit the case. In other words, the round was touched off, in rapid fire, before the slide had a chance to get all the way forward into position. I shot the gun 2-3 hours a day, every other day, for 5 years, and hardly ever
cleaned it. Was too busy shooting and reloading.

Anyway, the cases would every once in awhile be bad enough to keep the gun from locking up. Never had a Kaboom, but, with a sloppy chamber, or large chamber, I could see this happening using reloaded ammunition, after it has been fired in the gun a few times. I was shooting 451 Detonics level loads, around 30k pressure, in stock 45 ACP brass, and, thanks to the tight chamber of the Detonics, had zero problems, other then those few rounds that bulged above the case head, caused by the above situation. In a lesser, poorer designed gun, I could see
those rounds kabooming.

I also don't think ANY 45 ACP Glock has ever kaboomed.
Why? The pressure of the 45 ACP is so low, unless you screw up loading, I just can't see getting enough pressure
to blow up a 45 ACP case, and, I was asking for it, for 5 years, using stock brass, with heavy loads.

S J.D.

MTMilitiaman
August 31, 2007, 03:04 PM
I.m sorry I'm so stupid so explain just how a 1911 can Have a PRECHAMBERING DETONATION KABOOM.

A round going off before it is chambered? I've been a member of GlockTalk for years, and never even heard of that happening with a Glock. I don't even see how it would be possible. By the time the slide starts its forward motion, the striker is behind the breech face. In fact, by the time a round is stripped from the magazine, the striker assembly is already being pulled backwards to the approximately 60% loaded tension it will rest at until the trigger pull completes and releases it. By this time, the firing pin safety is in place, and blocks forward travel of the striker until the raised portion of the trigger bar disengages it during rearward travel caused by the operator pulling the trigger. Even if the operator only lets the trigger travel forward to reset, a cam on the bottom of the slide pushes the raised portion of the connector in to the left, the trigger spring drives the trigger bar up, and this catches the lug of the striker assembly, pulling it backwards to its set position. At its set position, there is not enough energy, even if it is released and manages to bypass a failed firing pin safety for it to set off the cartridge.

MythBuster
August 31, 2007, 06:24 PM
Idiots manage to shoot themselves all the time with all sorts of guns. An idiot is an idiot no matter if they wear a badge or not.

If some morons pulls the trigger on a loaded firearm and the firearm discharges it is doing exactly as it was designed to do.

MythBuster
August 31, 2007, 06:27 PM
"Ahh, now we get into the kBs, with an interesting twist; I've never had someone actually be stupid enough to presume kBs were unique to Glock."

You don't talk to the anti Glock crowd much do you?

Many of them "know" the Glock is the only gun to ever have that problem.

MythBuster
August 31, 2007, 06:31 PM
"Also, you have to pull the trigger to take the gun down for disassembly, another thing that's led to Glock NDs".

If you pull the trigger on a pistol without checking the chamber you are a damn fool that has no business with a firearm of any kind.

j-framer
August 31, 2007, 06:34 PM
If you pull the trigger on a pistol without checking the chamber you are a damn fool that has no business with a firearm of any kind.

There it is - in a nutshell. If only more people recognized this simple truth.

Sarge
August 31, 2007, 06:36 PM
I am personally aware of three explosive-disassembly events, one of which resulted in a wrist injury to a friend of mine. His 10mm Glock let go with the first round of a reload (can't say what it was- I didn't load it) that we had been using with fine results in Colt Deltas. The other two were .40’s, which cracked up with factory ammo. Glock seems determined to correct neither the out-of-battery firing nor unsupported chamber issues, which obviously contribute to this. Lead is a no-no in their barrels. The polygonal rifling may also be a factor, but I suspect it is more the manner in which the leade is cut into the rifling, which collects bullet metal until it contributes to a KaBoom. Wild speculation on my part; I can’t say for sure. Glock is obviously selling enough guns that they aren’t concerned about it, and a very small percentage of their .40+ guns have KaBoomed.

There are several manufacturers who make aftermarket barrels for these guns, which feature much better chamber support and conventional rifling. You can bet your reloading press that I would be installing one in any .40+ Glock that resided in my holster...


...get a good hard holster that covers the triggerguard and work on your trigger-finger & muzzle discipline. Be damn careful when disassembling the gun, as it requires the trigger to be pulled. The internet is loaded with ‘shot left hand’ images from folks who forgot that pesky little round in the chamber- and somehow got their off-hand in front of the muzzle when the were pulling the trigger, prior to disassembly.

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2006/03/straight-talk-on-glocks.html#links

wolverine350
August 31, 2007, 09:24 PM
If glocks are unsafe, its because the person that said it was unsafe made it that way his or her self, but there all unsafe if you are an unsafe person in the handling of firearms

Silentarmy
September 1, 2007, 05:56 PM
Firing out of battery huh? Only the "antiGlock" would believe in such an event! I would imagine the main reason for "Glock not correcting such a problem" would have something to do with the impossibility of such an occurance. You can't blame a case failure on much but the CASE! Oh, wait.... I suppose you could blame it on a Glock! I have heard alot of unsubstantiated claims but that one (out of battery) gets my "Gold Medal Of ASSININITY"
I have had 2 KB's. Both .40, both case failures due to metal fatigue on reloads. One Glock 27, one Beretta 96. Unsupported chamber theory kinda null on the beretta! Failure to lock (into battery) also non-issue as neither system will fire out of battery!

Sarge
September 1, 2007, 08:06 PM
Out of Battery? Impossible? (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/dimples.html)

The burst case in one of the factory-load KsBooms mentioned in my post above, was examined by another FTO I have known for years. He told me that nearly the back third of the .40 S&W case was gone (they found the case head-primer was gone) while the front two-thirds looked normal, except where it had flared upon bursting. While Glocks barrels leave a substantial area of the cartridge unsupported- it is nowhere near a third of the case. That one simply had to have blown while two-thirds of the way (or a little more) into the chamber.

I'm not a Glock hater by any means, but that specific incident and information in the TGZ article present compelling evidence that individual guns cand and do fire out of battery.

Socrates
September 1, 2007, 08:28 PM
Invsst:
Great post, and great link. It's so much fun learning history on such stuff...

S esq.

Night Watch
September 1, 2007, 09:42 PM
:confused: Wait a minute. Glocks are unsafe! How do I know? Well, I’ve carried one, almost everyday, for the past 5 years. When the moment finally comes that you consider a Glock to be a, ‘safe pistol’ that’s when it’ll probably surprise you! :eek:

That TGZ article is an old one. It is previous to the G-21 upgrade which - thanks the Portland Police Bureau and the Georgia State Patrol - took place earlier this year. I used to have those exact same problems with both of my G-21’s; and, I was keenly aware that something could go wrong at anytime – Especially when using a high peak pressure round like some of the Federal stuff. With the introduction of the new #4256-1 trigger bar the risk of a G-21 going, ‘kaBoom!’ in your face has gone way down.

(It’s, now, been more than 6 months and several thousand rounds since I’ve had any sort of OOB event!)

The new G-22's, et al, now have better chamber support and longer fingers on the lock block. Is there a difference? Well, the frequency of 40 caliber kaBooms! seems to have gone way down – At least in 3rd generation pistols that have been manufactured this year.

Please don’t confuse me with a, ‘Glock apologist’. I don’t drink Kool-Aid; and, I’ve been in, at least, as many arguments over Glocks with people like WalterGA as anyone else on this board. I’ll say this: In my opinion, Glock is finally coming to grips with its real world problems; perhaps, because the factory has been forced to straighten itself out. Happily, as user experience accumulates, it’s getting tougher and tougher for Glock to continue hiding their problems with different models; and, from what I can see, things really are starting to improve and get safer.

Now, is the Glock design inherently unsafe? Yes, I think that it is; and, this is the principal reason, ‘Why’ I use an Israeli carry. In my opinion Glock’s design is and will continue to be unsafe until Gaston finally breaks down and agrees to include a functional manual safety on his pistols. Will this ever happen? I’m optimistic! To my mind the only real question is, ‘When’? :)

Yellowfin
September 2, 2007, 12:17 AM
I think of it more like a person's task keeping system. Some people use a notepad. Others a PDA. Still others a tape recorder. Yet others on their wall calendar. It's all in what you can use the most effectively as an individual and what you can automatically reference in your mind. Is a 1911 safe for ME? Definitely. Is a Glock safe for ME? Might be, might not be, haven't tried it in person. It appears that Glocks are safe for a lot of individuals, and this is a very, very individual matter. I for one wouldn't have one always stuffed with kids in the hosue, but that's just going by what I know.

Silentarmy
September 2, 2007, 12:23 AM
Invssgt.
Thanks for the links! Very informative! I must admit that my knowledge and training with Glocks started in 1995 apparently after these issues were detected and resolved and the oldest model I currently have in my safe(out of seven) was built in 1998. I have attempted to cause such failures to no avail although my .40 KB with my G27 was unexpected! In my first post on "anyone have a kaboom?" thread included a picture although poor quality that showed that particular case that failed with at least 25% of the case blown out but a centered primer strike. I had several failures to lock in my G22 when using a .357 barrel and rounds I had sized from .40 cases due to headspace issues but no firing was possible on those. It was interesting to read that it was at one time a possibility! I appreciate being corrected on that.

Sarge
September 2, 2007, 07:41 AM
Well thanks, SilentArmy, and you're welcome. Do I get to keep the "Gold Medal Of ASSININITY" (never had one of those before) or should I consider that an apology?

Kreyzhorse
September 2, 2007, 08:03 AM
Glocks are very unforgiving of poor firearm safety practices.


I think the above quote sums a Glock up nicely. The Glock unto itself is not an unsafe fire any more so than any other firearm. A Glock does demand that you practice safe handling at all times and you need to be totally aware of the weapon.

I've owned a Glock for years and it is, on occasion, my CCW piece. I've never had a ND, but I try to be fully aware of the weapon and its character. For me, that includes a good Galco Fletch holster and when clearing the chamber, a visual and a tactile search.

Not that you don't have to be fully aware when using any firearm, but I do feel that my Glock requires me step up when carrying it verse my Smith and Wesson 637 Airweight.

Hard Ball
September 2, 2007, 10:07 AM
For some very intwewsting experiments with Glocks firing out of battery do a TFL member name search on Handy

Hard Ball
September 2, 2007, 01:38 PM
A Brief History od Glock Problems

At a match recently I said that I don't trust Glocks. My reason is simple. They have too many mysterious problems. I was immediately called a "Glock Basher" and asked to name these socalled problems.

Here is a brief summary condensed from The Gun Zone,

"Glock's Gravest Problem

A potentially ruinous event strikes the popular police pistol
First it was the April 1992 Product Upgrade, public disclosure of which was spurred by the AD Heard 'Round The World, but which had its origins in Glock's 1991 failure in the DEA "frisbee test."

Then it was the contentious issue of the Glock kB!s which the Smyrna, Georgia importer of the immensely popular Austrian-manufactured handgun has yet, more than 11 years after the catastrophic failures started happening on a regular basis, to properly address.

Next up were the defective guide rods of the Models 26 and 27 built between mid-September and late-October, 1999.

Then came the mysterious "Phase 3 Malfunctions" for which Glock, Inc. staunchly denied responsibility for almost six years before sucking it up and sending a mini-machine shop to City Island, NY to retro-machine over 26,000 of NYPD's Models 19.

Now things look grim indeed for the company which, in just 16 years, has not only captured a lion's share of the United States law enforcement market, but revolutionized the handgun industry.

First word reached public notice the week of 7 October 2002 with the story out of the Bernalillo County (New Mexico) that the Sheriff's Department had discovered a problem in some newer .40-caliber Glock pistols that could lead to breakages after prolonged use.

The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has discovered a problem with its new Glock .40-caliber semi-automatic handguns.

Deputy Robert Ray, the armorer who runs the department's shooting range, he says the department scrambled to inspect all of its Glocks on Monday after two weapons broke.

The inspection turned up two more broken guns. Ray says that on some newer versions of the gun, two pieces of steel in the lower portion of the weapon were improperly machined. Those pieces may be prone to breaking under the stress of repeated firing. (see sidebar for complete text)
The days after this news broke, a tip from a source in the 703 area code reached TGZ that "Glock has a big problem:"

Glock has recently discovered a serious structual problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in the last couple of years©ˆ. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, is now causing some rear rails to break off the guns©˜. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.

Glock recently went to the FBI and told them about this problem and quietly replaced over 700 frames. They apparently have no intention to tell their other customers about this problem. This problem affects ALL models of Glocks and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS. What about the DC Police with 4000 guns, NYPD with 35000 guns.

They have a major recall situation on their hands, but like their infamous "upgrade," this will never be called a recall. This needs to be investigated and publicized to make Glock take care of their other customers and not give preference to the big FBI.
And investigated it is, first with the FBI's Firearms Training Unit in Quantico, Virginia, and then with Glock, Inc. which has been telling its 9mm-issuing agencies that it was only the .40 S&W pistols, due to the higher pressure, which are at risk. Although the same defect is present on all the polymer pistols, the company doesn't think the 9 x 19mm cartridge "is powerful enough" to break the rail.

Glock Inc.'s initial solution, curiously published on the Glock Shooting Sports Foundation site as opposed to the official Glock site, offered the following:

We have made the decision that in the interest of customer service, replacement frames will be offered to anyone who has a firearm in this range ("a very small percentage of GLOCK pistols produced between September of 2001 and May of 2002") and decides to take advantage of this offer. The replacement frames will have identical serial numbers to our customer's original firearm except the numeral 1 will be added as a prefix.

Night Watch
September 2, 2007, 03:58 PM
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has discovered a problem with its new Glock .40-caliber semi-automatic handguns.

:) In all fairness to Glock this problem HAS BEEN ADDRESSED as I mentioned above. I don't think we'll see it again on any 40 caliber pistol manufactured AFTER late Spring of 2007.

Glock has recently discovered a serious structural problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in the last couple of years. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, is now causing some rear rails to break off the guns. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.

While I don’t blindly accept everything the Glock factory has to say, (Lord knows, I’ve been lied to more than once by Glock tech support.) I honestly do believe Glock on this one. I think it WAS a problem with some, ‘Glock Forties' and not with others. If I carried a 9mm I truly wouldn’t worry about it; I do carry a Glock 45 acp; and, I’m not worried, at all.

But, yes, Glock had this problem; and, as usual, they were less than perfectly straightforward about it with the general public. :rolleyes:

JohnKSa
September 2, 2007, 11:45 PM
When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.I have never heard of a rail breaking and locking up the gun. The only rail breakage incident I recall seeing posted resulted in a POI shift but the gun kept working. Glock indicated that a rail breaking shouldn't tie up the gun--they appear to be right based on the only report I've heard.

I have heard of only a very few rails breaking at all. The one posted here at TFL was the result of a person intentionally shooting the gun after finding out that it fell into the serial number range of the affected guns. He ran around 7000 rounds through it before the rail broke and when it did, he sent in the gun and got a free replacement frame from Glock.

I tried to track down the total number of broken rails and ended up with something like 10, IIRC. Glock stated that the the rails had a higher CHANCE of failing than they were willing to accept and therefore said that they would offer free replacement frames to anyone with a Glock in the affected serial number range regardless of whether or not the gun had failed. In other words, they were not replacing guns that WOULD fail, they were going a step farther and replacing guns that had an unacceptably high CHANCE of failing. Said another way, a lot of the guns they replaced were not EVER going to fail in the manner specified but Glock replaced them anyway....Glock recently went to the FBI and told them about this problem and quietly replaced over 700 frames. They apparently have no intention to tell their other customers about this problem.
...
Glock Inc.'s initial solution, curiously published on the Glock Shooting Sports Foundation site as opposed to the official Glock site, offered the following:

We have made the decision that in the interest of customer service, replacement frames will be offered to anyone who has a firearm in this range... Does anyone else see the contradiction here?

MTMilitiaman
September 3, 2007, 02:55 PM
For those that are still interested. I am not sure how much good the pics are going to do as it really must be seen first hand to understand. When you hold the barrels in your hand side-by-side, you realize that the problem, if you call it such, with the stock Glock barrel is not case support, but rather is how loose the chamber is. The stock Glock barrel doesn't lack case support compared to popular designs such as the 1911, at least in its .45 ACP chambering. I've never handled a Delta Elite, so I couldn't comment on how its case support compares to the standard 1911 or Glock factory barrels. But the Glock chamber is rather loose. This isn't a problem if you are shooting ammo within SAAMI specs and you don't care about case life. If you handload, you might want to pic up an aftermarket barrel. Even with a high quality aftermarket barrel like the KKM or BarSto, the Glock still costs less than most HKs, SIGs, and 1911s.

Here is a stock Glock 20 barrel next to a stock length stainless Glock 20 KKM Precision barrel:
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/stockglockandkkmbarrels.jpg

And here is the stock Glock 20 barrel next to the stock barrel from a SA MilSpec 1911 .45 ACP:
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/stockglockand1911barrels2.jpg

Night Watch
September 3, 2007, 09:59 PM
^^^ Very good post. Thanks! :)

downfall
September 6, 2007, 07:51 PM
Glocks execution of the design has not been the best and the stonewalling and denial of problems with the pistols tells you a lot about the culture of the company. Glocks behavior reminds me a lot of GM

Texshooter
September 6, 2007, 10:21 PM
Glocks, like all firearms, are very unsafe. There is no elimination of risk. The same is true of flying and driving.

But there are ways we can live to minimize risk.

What I find amusing are the cool aid drinkers (of various flavors) who proclaim just keep your finger off the trigger mantra. Horse puckey.

If a person is stupid enough to put a loaded Glock in their pocket without a holster, there is a very much higher risk they will get shot by their weapon without the finger being near the thing than those with, say, a S&W j frame, or something along those lines.

Glocks can indeed fire without the finger touching the trigger. About 3 years ago an off duty Policeman shot himself at the ACC basketball tourney in Greensboro. He had a Glock in his pocket, inside what appears to be an inadequate holster, and while adjusting his seating position the "safety" was depressed enough to discharge the weapon. No finger but loud bang.

Glocks can easily discharge while reholstering if the "safety" is touched hard enough by the holster.

I also did not realize that "all LEOs carry them." Wow, all of them?

In my little burg, they do. They got them for free. That is ZERO $. Tough decision.

Ocraknife
September 6, 2007, 10:43 PM
Glocks can easily discharge while reholstering if the "safety" is touched hard enough by the holster.

Sounds like a poorly designed holster. As an aside, how is it that you feel the glock is somehow less safe than a revolver?

Night Watch
September 6, 2007, 11:36 PM
:confused: Wow, do I get tired of fielding that one! I refuse to answer it, anymore. Think I'm going to go over to Glock Talk for awhile, sip some nice warm Kool-Aid and rest up. :D

MTMilitiaman
September 7, 2007, 01:30 AM
Glocks can easily discharge while reholstering if the "safety" is touched hard enough by the holster.

"Easily?" Hardly.

If your holster is discharging your weapon, then regardless of which weapon it is, you need to look into a new holster. That's all there is to it.

A properly designed holster will not cause the weapon to fire upon re-holstering. This is true of Glocks as well. I splurged on a $20 Uncle Mikes, and as previously reported, spent the better part of an hour attacking it at all angles with a cleared pistol attempting to make the thumb break fire the weapon, and was unable to do so at any practical angle. Even if the thumb break makes it into the trigger guard, in my experience, it is extremely unlikely that it will fire. Getting it to do so means one of two things, or a combination thereof; you are either incredibly unlucky, or incredibly stupid.

Thumb breaks are usually positioned over the back of the slide. This puts them above the trigger guard in a position that requires an absurdly awkward and unnatural entry angle in order for it to find its way anywhere near the trigger. Through thousands of draws and re-holsterings, I have yet to have it accidentally make it into the trigger guard once. Not once. It can be forced there, but even then it is usually above the trigger safety and even if it manipulates the trigger safety, pulls itself free of the trigger guard long before applying enough force to the trigger to cause it to fire.

You know what kind of care was required to accomplish this feat? First I had to have the common sense to make sure the holster was marked as being made for my make and model of handgun. Secondly, I had to follow pretty straight forward directions to set up the thumb break. Thirdly, I have to insert it muzzle first into the holster.

If your holster is causing your Glock to fire upon re-holstering, it is either incorrect for the make and model of handgun, the thumb break is set up incorrectly, you've done some mad tinkering with your pistol's trigger, or God hates you.

zukiphile
September 7, 2007, 10:01 AM
...you are either incredibly unlucky, or incredibly stupid. ...or God hates you.


At various times, I've seen evidence that each of these applies to me.

I shot a 24 weekly, some would say weakly, for years. It was in some ways brilliant, both reliable and accurate, and in other ways just odd.

Not having an external safety other than the trigger is an oddity I never warmed to. I believe that trait sold a lot of XDs.

mattro
September 7, 2007, 10:34 AM
zukiphile, well put.

I see it's funny how pro-Glock people call anyone that questions the Glock a "Glock Hater".

I question the M1A's shifting poi and ease of mounting optics without exotic stocks; does that make me a M1A hater, or a Springfield hater? NO. I've seen people that love the M1A admit and actively discuss some of the problems with the M1A without calling people "M1A Haters".

I dont hate the Glock, I think it's a great weapon. I just wondered, being the op, if the design of the Glock inherently made it less tolerant to mis-handling. Most of my friends shoot and love Glocks.

When someone fervently supports the Glock to the point that no criticism is valid, what does that make them?

Musketeer
September 7, 2007, 10:39 AM
Glocks are utterly unforgiving of any human error.

Humans are falible and error is a fact of life.

Glocks are not "unsafe" because they do exactly what they are designed to do.

People are unsafe because they do not always follow all the rules.

Glocks are POORLY DESIGNED from a human engineering standpoint. This has always been a weakness of Germanic designing and the Glock is continued proof of this. Great machines that work best if never touched by human hands, only robots.

Flame away!

zeroskillz
September 7, 2007, 11:09 AM
They can be extremely unsafe, depending on which end is pointed at you.
:p

MTMilitiaman
September 7, 2007, 12:11 PM
Beautiful thing about Glock, however, is that you can make into whatever you want it to be...

If you think the stock trigger pull is too light to be carried safely, you can put a NY1 or NY2 in it for cheap and have an 8 or 11 pound trigger pull similar to the DA pull on a revolver.

If you think the stock 5.5 pound trigger pull is too heavy to be shot accurately, you can put a 3.5 pound disconnector in it and have a pull of around 4 to 4.5 pounds.

If you want an external safety, Glock has stated they will cover a Cominolli thumb safety under warrenty.

If you want a frame of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or even titanium, CCF Race Frames makes them.

If the grip on your full size Glock 10mm or .45 is too big for you, Arizona Response Systems and Robar, among others, will do a grip reduction.

Most people get Glocks for their simplicity and are fine with them having polymer frames and no speakable external safety. That is kind of the point with a Glock. But Glocks are moderately priced to begin with and compared to most of their competition, you can afford to fool around with them a little to get what you like.

Don't forget, though, that firearms are, by nature of their capabilities, inheriantly unforgiving of human error. This can be said of anything powerful left to human control. If you want to put a safety switch over the accelerator petal of a sports car, fine, but don't expect everyone to understand or agree with it.

SDC
September 7, 2007, 12:16 PM
They're only as unsafe as the person holding/using them.

zukiphile
September 7, 2007, 01:26 PM
If you want an external safety, Glock has stated they will cover a Cominolli thumb safety under warrenty.

Really? You mean they will pay for installation of this safety?

I think that is brilliant. They should publicise this better.

Not to re-ignite any 1911 v. glock rivalries, but I could see glock making huge inroads into the current 1911 market with that thumb safety and a 3.5 trigger on a single stack, 1911 grip angled .45acp.

FWIW, I've shot a friend's 36 (?, the single stack, 6 round, .45acp) that printed a single quarter sized ragged hole at 50'. I thought it was a fluke, so I tried a second magazine with the same result. I was impressed.

Night Watch
September 7, 2007, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Not having an external safety other than the trigger is an oddity I never warmed to. I believe that trait sold a lot of XD’s.

:) I, also, think that’s very well said!

Originally Posted by Musketeer
Glocks are utterly unforgiving of any human error. Humans are fallible and error is a fact of life.

Doesn’t necessarily have to be a mistake; sometimes it can be an accident or unintended consequence of something you do like reaching for your pistol in the dark, or underneath a pillow – Bang! :eek:

Originally Posted by MTMilitiaman
If you want a frame of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or even titanium, CCF Race Frames makes them.

Right now, CCF Race Frames is only producing metal frames for a limited number of Glock models like the: 17’s, 22’s, 24’s, 31’s, 34’s and 35’s, as well as the 37.

Originally Posted by SDC
They're only as unsafe as the person holding/using them.

Or, as unlucky! ;)







Glock will NOT pay for the installation of a Cominolli Safety. All they will do is NOT un:install it while they’re making other repairs to your pistol.

MTMilitiaman
September 7, 2007, 06:11 PM
Right now, CCF Race Frames is only producing metal frames for a limited number of Glock models like the: 17’s, 22’s, 24’s, 31’s, 34’s and 35’s, as well as the 37.

Or, in other words, about 3/4 of Glocks sold ;)

IanS
September 7, 2007, 07:07 PM
...only if you are.

Of course there are plenty of people in this country who would deem ANY firearm "unsafe" for anyone.:rolleyes: So I guess it depends on who you ask.

Night Watch
September 7, 2007, 10:01 PM
Or, in other words, about 3/4 of Glocks sold

Ahh ... No. Depends on how you count! I'd give you 1/3, though. ;)

BacardiJimRNB
September 7, 2007, 11:52 PM
All guns are only unsafe as their owners are.

BluesBear
September 8, 2007, 04:36 AM
I apologize for forgetting the name of the gentleman who first posted these photos.
But we all owe him thanks for putting the case support issue in clear perspective.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26695&d=1189244095

threegun
September 8, 2007, 06:16 AM
Are Glocks unsafe................NO

They are perfect though :D LOL.

old_ironsights
September 8, 2007, 11:50 AM
Glocks have NO manual safety but the shooter, thus Glocks are as unsafe as the shooter.

Unfortunately for Glock owners, even the most experienced and educated shooter CAN do something stupid or inattentive.

With a Glock, that stupidity or inattention will probably cost the shooter his life. On a weapon with a manual safety, the shooter has to make an additional, separate, conscious and definite move to put himself in danger.

RevolverLover
September 8, 2007, 12:29 PM
On a weapon with a manual safety, the shooter has to make an additional, separate, conscious and definite move to put himself in danger.


True, but with everything man-made even a manual safety can fail.

wayneinFL
September 8, 2007, 08:29 PM
Are glocks unsafe? They're guns! Of course they are not safe!

That's why we have to follow safety rules when using them.

Silentarmy
September 9, 2007, 12:36 AM
Much safer than Glocks! Warning: Mild language barely audible!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2znW47letY

Night Watch
September 9, 2007, 06:21 AM
:D :D :D A true classic! I'm still laughing. Thanks! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

olretiredgunney
September 9, 2007, 01:00 PM
And 4 or 5 thousand rounds(or more) later it still shoots anything I put in it including my reloads.It looks like a plastic toy but it shure doesn't shoot like one.I would trust my life to it.How many can you say that for?:cool:

threadbare
September 9, 2007, 01:32 PM
This seems a bit like the anti's saying that firearms lead to crime, social ills, skyrocketing healthcare costs, obesity or whatever. A glock or any handgun, is a mechanical device that relies on a human operator to function. It can only be as safe as the person using it.

old_ironsights
September 9, 2007, 07:47 PM
Glock states, "Safe and ingeniously simple: Contrary to conventional, the trigger is the only operating element. All three pistol safeties are deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is released."

The safety on most weapons keeps you from pulling the trigger.

But the Gock is designed to let you deactivate all three of their safeties by pulling the trigger.

Hmmmm.

JohnKSa
September 9, 2007, 08:01 PM
The safety on most weapons keeps you from pulling the trigger.

But the Gock is designed to let you deactivate all three of their safeties by pulling the trigger.Precisely.

The Glock safeties are designed to prevent the gun from firing when the user does NOT intend to fire and not to impede the user when he DOES intend to fire.

The way you demonstrate your intent to fire is by pulling the trigger--just as you would with any other gun**.

**Assuming you believe in the three rules of gun safety--primarily Rule 2.

Greg Bell
September 9, 2007, 09:00 PM
Basically, the Glock is less safe than other modern designs. The gun has no manual safety, and has a light trigger with very little reset. Combine this with the fact that many end users install 3.5 pound connectors and you have mathematical certainty that Glocks will result in more ND/AD.

Is the Glock unsafe? You damn betcha--it is a gun (Cooper?) Is it so much more dangerous than say, a da/sa design that you shouldn't carry it? No. Glocks are like driving a Kia, SIGs are like driving an SUV.

SpectreBlofeld
September 10, 2007, 03:23 AM
When I was shopping for a compact semiauto I considered the glock. Did lots of research first, and these things scared me away:

-Unsupported/loose chambers - whether ammo was faulty or not, this certainly only increases the likelihood of an exploding handgun. It just makes common sense. The case is designed to be surrounded by a fat metal barrel when fired.

-firing out of battery - this was a big one.

-an incomprehensible trigger on the end of the trigger, which may be the stupidest thing about these guns. You know how in the movies, the big red SELF DESTRUCT button has a little door that closes over it, to keep someone from bumping into it? Yeah, that's a safety. You wouldn't call it a safety if they just put a smaller self-destruct button on top of the actual self-destruct button! It'd STILL be easy to accidentally hit (or non-accidentally). I think Glock should not be using the word 'safety' to describe that thing.

-the requirement that the trigger be pulled to disassemble. The trigger should only HAVE to be pulled for ONE REASON. Imagine if our Big Red Self Destruct Button mentioned above needed to be pressed before you could shut down the Self Destruct system for cleaning? Are you kidding me!? :eek:

-The lack of an external, manually operated safety or decocker (like the Walther p99 has. Now that's a decent design).

-Polygonal rifling that limits your ammo options, and warnings from the manufacturer shooing customers away from lead bullets and reloads.

These things together spooked me away.

I bought a CZ-75 P-01 and haven't looked back.

I will revisit the idea of purchasing a Glock when Gaston stops disguising recalls as 'upgrades' and stops pretending these things are perfect.

I even have a good reason for owning one - I have a Kel-Tec Sub2000 that takes Glock 17 magazines. I have two 17-rounders and a 33 round magazine. It'd be nice to have a pistol that could share those mags, but my problems with the Glock design are enough to deter it. If I did go that route, I'd be installing the aftermarket safety on the trigger, replacing the barrel with an aftermarket non-polygonal match-grade barrel, and definitely wouldn't buy one in anything other than 9mm until I'm sure the firing out of battery issue is no more.

BluesBear
September 10, 2007, 04:00 AM
SpectreBlofeld, Well said sir.
I think that many folks feel the same way but are not able to express it as well.

Personally I think the Glock is a fine weapon. They have a lot going for them.
However I feel its design makes it better suited to a more experienced handler. In my opinion it is NOT a good choice for a beginner.


Now here's where I will get flamed once again...

I personally believe that if a person can not understand the complex operation of a manual safety then perhaps they are not quite ready to own a firearm.

But then I believe that the four rules should be taught in elementary school.

FS2K
September 10, 2007, 05:20 AM
This is true. Before I understood how a Glocks trigger works I didn't dare handle mine with a round in the chamber until I was ready to shoot it right there and then.

But DAO Sigs don't have any safeties on them. And their DA/SA handguns only have a de-cocker on some. No hammer or firing pin blocks at all. Same for Rugers and allot of other brands and models when you think about it. Revolvers S/A or D/A don't have any safties either for that matter. So why are Glocks thought of as being so unsafe when all these other guns offer no safety as well?

I don't really understand why anyone would need a de-cocker. I suppose they're convienient, but are they nessesary? And is a handgun with one somehow more safe than a Hammer-less gun?

Do the HK P2000 series have manual safety switches? I've never seen one in real life, but they don't look like they do, AND they have exposed hammers. A S&W 4046 DAO doesn't have any type of safety or decocker. Are they "unsafe"? How about the Walther P99's "Quick Action"? My point is, Glocks aren't the only handguns with no manual safeties on them, but they are one of the only guns to have triple internal safety systems. Granted, manual safety switches offer a visual cue and added sense of safety, but that doesn't mean they are MORE safe than Glocks "Safe Action".

Cremon
September 10, 2007, 06:49 AM
I personally believe that if a person can not understand the complex operation of a manual safety then perhaps they are not quite ready to own a firearm.

LOL!!! I personally refuse to own a handgun that does not have a manual safety.

SpectreBlofeld
September 10, 2007, 12:17 PM
I have other guns without manual safeties, but they are all DA/SA carried with hammer down, and thus have heavier (initial) trigger pulls.

Anyway, it's not the lack of a safety that bothers me, really. It bugs me that they call that nub on the trigger a safety. I don't see it as any more of a safety than the trigger itself.

I would actually just prefer the decocker switch that the p99 has. From world.guns.ru:

"The standard P99 is double / single action with a decocking button..... despite being striker-fired, these pistols do not require the user to press the trigger during disassembly to disconnect the sear from the firing pin. This is done by using the decocking button, built into the top of the slide. "

ATW525
September 10, 2007, 12:32 PM
Glocks are 100% safe as long as you adhere to the rules of firearms safety (which have been around longer than Glocks themselves).

Now, if you don't adhere to the rules of firearms safety, is it really the Glock that's unsafe?

zukiphile
September 10, 2007, 01:03 PM
Glocks are 100% safe as long as you adhere to the rules of firearms safety (which have been around longer than Glocks themselves).

Now, if you don't adhere to the rules of firearms safety, is it really the Glock that's unsafe?

A Ford Pinto without seatbelts is 100% safe so long as everyone adheres to the rules of motorway safety (which have been around longer than Ford Pintos themselves).

Now, if someone doesn't ashere to the rules of motorway safety, is it really the Ford Pinto without seatbelts that is unsafe?



Tools people use are generally better when they help protect against known human failings.

Musketeer
September 10, 2007, 01:04 PM
Now, if you don't adhere to the rules of firearms safety, is it really the Glock that's unsafe?


Nope, just poorly designed for use by anything but infallible human beings. Oops, sorry, there is no such thing!

One could say a car with no seatbelts is completely safe as long as all the rules of the road are followed!

HELP, Zukiphile is reading my mind!!!!

281 Quad Cam
September 10, 2007, 01:10 PM
A Ford Pinto without seatbelts is 100% safe so long as everyone adheres to the rules of motorway safety (which have been around longer than Ford Pintos themselves).

Not to join the argument in either direction but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard..... A Glock does not require everybody else to follow the rules - only you.

You could follow all the rules of the road and still get hit by a retard. But if a retard has your gun and is running around willy nilly pulling the trigger while it's loaded....... The lack of a manual safety doesn't even begin to address the problem.

zukiphile
September 10, 2007, 01:45 PM
Not to join the argument in either direction but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.....

Did you read this?

You could follow all the rules of the road and still get hit by a retard. But if a retard has your gun and is running around willy nilly pulling the trigger while it's loaded.......

I don't pretend to know the percentage of ADs caused by "retards" with stolen glocks "willy nilly pulling the trigger while it's loaded", but I doubt that it is a statistically significant part of the discussion.:D

The planted axiom in your post is that ADs only harm the people who cause them. I doubt that too.

Musketeer
September 10, 2007, 02:08 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police4page1.htm

In the 10 years since D.C. police adopted the Glock 9mm to combat the growing firepower of drug dealers, there have been more than 120 accidental discharges of the handgun. Police officers have killed at least one citizen they didn't intend to kill and have wounded at least nine citizens they didn't intend to wound. Nineteen officers have shot themselves or other officers accidentally. At least eight victims or surviving relatives have sued the District alleging injuries from accidental discharges.

I am certain the people shot or killed by SOMEONE ELSE not following the rules aren't upset...

Yes, training is lacking, at the same time departments seem to see quite a few NDs with Glocks, more so than with other autos incorporating things like

Manual Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety (How many morons drop the mag and then pull the trigger? Too Many!)
Not needing to pull the trigger to disassemble the gun!

Gun handling, like driving, does not take place in a vaccuum . Mess up and it is more than just the moron who may pay! Some form of safety should be designed in from a simple human engineering standpoint! Glcok has NO human engineering built into it with regards to human error.

ATW525
September 10, 2007, 03:12 PM
Yes, training is lacking, at the same time departments seem to see quite a few NDs with Glocks, more so than with other autos incorporating things like

Manual Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety (How many morons drop the mag and then pull the trigger? Too Many!)
Not needing to pull the trigger to disassemble the gun!

And just what exactly is the ratio of Glocks NDs to NDs with other guns? There used to be an article talking about the hundreds of NDs the LAPD experienced during the time period they predominently armed with the manual safety equipped Beretta. I believe the article pointed out how they shot themselves nearly as much as they had been shot by suspects. Unfortunately the LA Times doesn't have it online anymore.

Musketeer
September 10, 2007, 03:31 PM
Another gem frmo the article I linked before...

"Some of the same factors that give it tremendous high-speed hit potential while you're fighting for your life also make it more prone to accidental discharges," Massad Ayoob, a New Hampshire police captain who also runs a firearms instruction institute, said. "You don't want your 16-year-old kid out of driver's ed driving a Corvette Stingray. The Glock is like a Corvette Stingray."

...

Officers are told during training to avoid such accidents by being attentive to the Glock's unique, simplified design: An officer cleaning a Glock has to pull the trigger before removing the slide to get access to the gun barrel. In many other pistols, taking the magazine of bullets from the gun renders it unable to fire. But the Glock has no "magazine safety" – if an officer leaves a bullet in the chamber, the Glock will still fire if the trigger is pulled.



I am looking for the rates of incerase in accidents for Glocks outside of the article I have already provided. I know NYPD had a big jump, leading to the NY1 and 2 triggers, just have to find the burried numbers.

SpectreBlofeld
September 10, 2007, 04:30 PM
A magazine disconnect safety would be a GREAT idea for a gun that requires pulling of the trigger for disassembly.

Alnamvet
September 10, 2007, 04:39 PM
...I don't believe forone second that Glock's are unsafe, but statistically, it may appear that there are more mishaps with Glocks if for only one reason...and that's because more folk carry, use for plaesure, and use for work Glocks more often than any three other gun brands combined...it is the workhorse of the masses.

ATW525
September 10, 2007, 04:50 PM
I personally like this Massad Ayoob quote:

"We had a lot of students come to class with GLOCK's," agrees Massad Ayoob of the Lethal Force Institute. "I do not think there is an easier handgun with which to teach a new shooter." - From "The GLOCK 19: The Perfect Handgun" by Gila Hayes on page 46 of the 2006 Glock Annual.

BoneDigger
September 10, 2007, 04:59 PM
I agree that the gun is not inherently "unsafe" and that it places the impetus of safety on the user, as do all guns. However, I do have one concern...

As a father of two young girls, I constantly have to consider their safety as well as mine. I am always diligent NOT to give them access to a firearm of anykind, much less a loaded one. All of my guns are kept locked up and I teach my children NOT TO TOUCH any gun unless I am there. However...

Does the lack of any kind of safety worry any of the parents here? If a child were to somehow find the gun, all they would have to do is pull the trigger. That seems awefully dangerous to me. I am considering a Glock 19, but this scenario repeats itself in my mind constantly.

I don't need anyone bashing me and calling me an unsafe dad, as I am not! I would like to say that accidents don't happen, but they do. So, can anyone make me feel better about the "trigger safety" of a Glock and how safe they are?

Todd

quickcanary
September 10, 2007, 05:20 PM
You could always store the Glock with a mag in the gun and the trigger in the rearmost position, requiring the slide to be racked before the gun can be fired. Some people will probably poo-poo this idea though, as if a BG entered your house the gun wouldn't be ready to fire until you racked the slide.

I don't know how old your daughters are and if they possess the strength to rack the slide, but it's a thought. An accident could still happen if they were determined enough, though, and that's why I am a huge proponent of educating kids on guns...spend some time with them and the gun so that their curiosity is satisfied and they won't be tempted to play with it when you're not there. But really, any gun can be as unsafe as Glocks if someone doesn't know what they are doing. I don't care if your gun has an external safety -- that too can be switched off quite easily and the gun is then an accident waiting to happen in the hands of someone that doesn't fully realize how dangerous it can be.

Couzin
September 10, 2007, 05:27 PM
Todd - first - let me say how astonished I am that you are finally coming over to the Glock side! Safety in a Glock around children is as you stated, don't touch. If a concern - four things -- never let it out of your sight or, lock it up or, keep the magazine out and no round chambered or, add one of those trigger locks and wear the key around your neck. Didn't Glock just announce some sort of key lock for the Glock pistols?

ATW525
September 10, 2007, 05:30 PM
Does the lack of any kind of safety worry any of the parents here?

No. I don't for a minute believe that a manual safety adds any measurable amount of "child proofing" to a gun. If a firearm is to be kept loaded it needs to be on your person or in a specially designed handgun safe at all times.

MTMilitiaman
September 10, 2007, 09:25 PM
I personally believe that if a person can not understand the complex operation of a manual safety then perhaps they are not quite ready to own a firearm.

And I personally know that if a person can not understand the complex concepts behind basic safety rules, they are definitely not ready to own a firearm.

Silentarmy
September 10, 2007, 10:19 PM
Manual safeties are there for the LEGAL protection of the manufacturer against frivolous lawsuits due to Morons who should not be handling guns! "See, we put a manual safety on it and the Jacka$$ STILL managed to hurt himself/others with it"

Night Watch
September 10, 2007, 11:10 PM
:) Todd,

That's a poignant post! (alliteration!) :D

I know I'm the odd man out; but, I live with a Glock all day and all night long. After 5 years of doing this, I can assure you there is no way to keep your finger outside the trigger guard absolutely all of the time - No way! Sooner or later it's going to happen: You reach across the table for it and ... . You reach underneath a pillow for it, and ... . You loose your grip and ... . You reholster in the bathroom or the car, and ... ! You get the idea.

This is one of the reasons, 'Why' I use an Israeli carry and a Mossad draw. Glocks and their lack of a conventional mechanical safety have become a passionate firearms' website issue. (Thanks, GT!) I have to wonder how many of us would think about operating a lawnmower or an automobile in the same way? How about the safety shutdown on a chainsaw - Is it really necessary in the hands of an experienced logger?

(Probably not, huh! I mean loggers are real men; what do they need extra safety devices for? Their real safety is between their ears - Isn't it!) :p

In the tradeoff between some bad hombre walking up to me, someday, and suddenly blasting me from 3' away, and the everyday risks a Condition One Glock poses to: my family, myself, and our critters, I honestly believe that I'm better off keeping my Glock in Condition Three.

(I mean just play the percentages, the probabilities. Which event is likely to occur sooner, if at all?) :cool:

In an aside: One year, one of my well-to-do aunts, a woman who spoiled her only son absolutely rotten, came up to me at a Christmas party. She told me that her son, Tommy, wanted to buy a motorcycle. She knew that I rode, and asked me about motorcycle riding. I told her that I didn't think it was a good idea for her to let Tommy buy a motorcycle. I reminded her that I had sold my Harley Sportster the same day that my son was born. She thanked me for my advice, agreed that it wasn't a good idea, and walked away.

That next Summer, we got a call: Tommy's new bike had gone off the road on a sharp curve. His body slammed into a road sign; he had internal injuries; but, he was expected to recover. Several days later we learned that, 'complications' had set in; and, Tommy was dead. After that, my aunt never spoke to me again. Whenever I came into a room where she was sitting, she would get up and walk away.

Why am I telling you this? I don't think it's a good idea to go against your better judgment. To my mind, strong personal reservations are always warnings - harbingers of whatever is most likely to happen in your life. Consequently, I'd be careful about letting myself get carried away with either too much internet, 'glamour' or other people's strongly prejudicial (albeit, popular) opinions.

All guns are inherently dangerous. Glocks are a little bit more so. A Glock will, 'go bang!' easier than any other pistol in the world - That's one of the things I really like about them! (And, of course, a Glock is easy to train on - Why not? All it does is go, 'Bang!') :eek:

In the final analysis, you're the only one who's going to pay your bills! If you don't feel quite right about it then, in my opinion, you shouldn't do it. ;)

JohnKSa
September 10, 2007, 11:25 PM
I can assure you there is no way to keep your finger outside the trigger guard absolutely all of the time - No way!If you find this to be the case you shouldn't carry a Glock with the chamber loaded. In addition, if you find any of the other three basic gun safety rules impossible to follow all the time then maybe even Condition 3 is not sufficiently "safe" for you. ;)You reach underneath a pillow for it...A Glock should never be left loaded unless it's in a holster that covers the trigger guard or is equipped with some other means of preventing the trigger from being inadvertently operated. "Under the pillow" storage of a chamber loaded unholstered Glock is absolutely NOT recommended.A Glock will, 'go bang!' easier than any other pistol in the world...There are certainly other guns with similar manuals of arms and similarly light triggers. There's enough confusion on this thread without throwing in some exaggeration to add to the mix.If you don't feel quite right about it then, in my opinion, you shouldn't do it.Now THAT I agree with 100%.

BluesBear
September 11, 2007, 04:32 AM
A Glock should never be left loaded unless it's in a holster that covers the trigger guard or is equipped with some other means of preventing the trigger from being inadvertently operated.
Something like a manual safety perhaps? ;)


Seriously, how in the world can a trigger be inadvertently operated? :confused:

BluesBear
September 11, 2007, 04:40 AM
A Glock will, 'go bang!' easier than any other pistol in the world
Okay since we're nitpicking perhaps he should have stated it thusly;

No other pistol in the world will 'go bang!' easier than a Glock.

BluesBear
September 11, 2007, 04:46 AM
A magazine disconnect safety would be a GREAT idea for a gun that requires pulling of the trigger for disassembly.I suspect there was a heavy dose of sarcasm in that statement. At least I hope there was.

However, there are some who might miss it and actually think it to be a grand idea.

Which of course it is not.

BluesBear
September 11, 2007, 06:30 AM
Glocks are 100% safe as long as you adhere to the rules of firearms safety (which have been around longer than Glocks themselves).
Now, if you don't adhere to the rules of firearms safety, is it really the Glock that's unsafe?

A Ford Pinto without seatbelts is 100% safe so long as everyone adheres to the rules of motorway safety (which have been around longer than Ford Pintos themselves).
Now, if someone doesn't ashere to the rules of motorway safety, is it really the Ford Pinto without seatbelts that is unsafe?

Zukiphile, are you seriously attempting to compare a gun with no manual safety to an automobile without seat belts?
Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Well, to each his own I guess.

Not to join the argument in either direction but this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard..... A Glock does not require everybody else to follow the rules - only you. EXACTLY!
Driving is done on a roadway full of other cars operated by other drivers.
You can be doing everything perfectly safe and still have some moron with a cellphone in one hand, a caramel mocha latte in another hand trying to put on lipstick with the other hand run smack dab into you.

You could follow all the rules of the road and still get hit by a retard. But if a retard has your gun and is running around willy nilly pulling the trigger while it's loaded....... The lack of a manual safety doesn't even begin to address the problem.However... you should have quit while you were ahead.
Because THAT is the dumbest thing that has been said in this thread.
On second though. I take that back. I spoke too soon. You have been outdumbed;
Manual safeties are there for the LEGAL protection of the manufacturer against frivolous lawsuits due to Morons who should not be handling guns!


Whenever we have one of these Glockophiles vs Glockophobes threads it never ceases to amaze me the things are are said with a straight face.

:rolleyes:

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 08:03 AM
Manual safeties are there for the LEGAL protection of the manufacturer against frivolous lawsuits due to Morons who should not be handling guns! "See, we put a manual safety on it and the Jacka$$ STILL managed to hurt himself/others with it"


Right, because gun makers were being eaten alive by lawsuits in 1911...

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 08:07 AM
-the requirement that the trigger be pulled to disassemble. The trigger should only HAVE to be pulled for ONE REASON. Imagine if our Big Red Self Destruct Button mentioned above needed to be pressed before you could shut down the Self Destruct system for cleaning? Are you kidding me!?


I like that! I have a problem with any gun that has instructions for dissasembly beginning with "Pull Trigger."

Officer's Match
September 11, 2007, 08:08 AM
A straight face?
(Quickly checks to see if webcam was left on).
:D

mattro
September 11, 2007, 08:10 AM
Musketeer, LOL Classic :D

Officer's Match
September 11, 2007, 08:18 AM
I personally don't mind the trigger pull to strip procedure, as I do try to make a habit of not field stripping my pistols when they are loaded.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 08:30 AM
" I have a problem with any gun that has instructions for disassembly beginning with "Pull Trigger."


Idiots are the problem here. Not the gun.

If someone carries a live round under the hammer of a Colt SAA he is an idiot that has no business with a firearm.

If someone carries a 1911 on half cock he is an idiot that has no business with a firearm.


If someone does not have enough brains to check the chamber on a gun before he pulls the trigger he is an idiot and a danger to himself and everyone else.

Not only should such people be disarmed they could use a good old fashioned country ass whipping.

These people make all of us look bad. I have no sympathy for them. I just hope that when the round leave their muzzle it hits their body and not mine.

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 08:32 AM
I like that! I have a problem with any gun that has instructions for dissasembly beginning with "Pull Trigger."

Remove magazine and check chamber both come before "Pull Trigger" in the Glock disassambly instructions. RTFM, follow the instructions and it's perfectly safe. People not capable of doing so should probably stick to Nerf weaponry.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 08:36 AM
Also I often wonder if some of these people have ever fired a Glock. They seem to think that if a fly lands on a Glock trigger it will fire.

Then you hear the "Glock trigger is so long and heavy it is impossible to shoot well" and the "Glock trigger is so short and light it is an accident waiting to happen" from some of the same people.

Night Watch
September 11, 2007, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by JohnKSA
If you find this to be the case you shouldn't carry a Glock with the chamber loaded. In addition, if you find any of the other three basic gun safety rules impossible to follow all the time then maybe even Condition 3 is not sufficiently "safe" for you.

OK, except anytime that Glock is out of a holster THIS is the situation; and, very few people leave their pistols inside a holster when they’re not wearing them. It doesn’t take reading too many threads to recognize that most people’s, ‘bedside Glocks’ are NOT kept in holsters.

There are certainly other guns with similar manuals of arms and similarly light triggers. There's enough confusion on this thread without throwing in some exaggeration to add to the mix.

Come on, John, you know better than that!

In fact there are, comparatively, very few pistols that have 64% pre-tensioned strikers and highly ineffective trigger safeties. I’m surprised at you for saying that. This is the first time I’ve, ever, disagreed with anything you’ve said; but, this time, you’re way out on a limb.

What, do you own stock in Glock? ;)

zukiphile
September 11, 2007, 09:21 AM
Right, because gun makers were being eaten alive by lawsuits in 1911...
Classic.

Quote:
A Ford Pinto without seatbelts is 100% safe so long as everyone adheres to the rules of motorway safety (which have been around longer than Ford Pintos themselves).
Now, if someone doesn't adhere to the rules of motorway safety, is it really the Ford Pinto without seatbelts that is unsafe?

Zukiphile, are you seriously attempting to compare a gun with no manual safety to an automobile without seat belts?

I am making the point that immediately followed the text you quoted, which was,

Tools people use are generally better when they help protect against known human failings.

We know that people break rules of the road, that wrecks result, and that we can take this into account when designing cars. If we are presented with an assertion that a Pinto without seatbelts is not as safe as a 2007 Volvo, it is no real answer to protest that the Pinto is every bit as safe so long as it is never crashed or hit from behind. We know these things happen regularly.

I didn't take the question to be whether a glock is safe if it is locked in a safe never to be touched by a person again. I assumed the issue was whether a glock is as safe as other designs when used for its intended purpose.

There is a fair bit about glocks I like. However, if a person notes that a glock is every bit as safe as other designs only so long as no rule of handling is ever broken and it is always stored is a special holster, then the additional dangers in use presented by the design are admitted.

Nightwatch, I assessed the risks similarly and kept mine in condition three as well. I also stopped smoking, purchased life insurance and sold my porsche when I had my first child. Different responsibilities made some mundane risks unacceptable.

k8do
September 11, 2007, 10:40 AM
Hmm, my bedside gun is a S&W 38 revolver... Just like a Glock it goes bang when the trigger is 'inadvertantly' pulled all the way back...
I just don't understand why S&W doesn't put a safety on these dangerous guns that shoot every time the trigger is pulled all the way back....

denny

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 11:00 AM
However, if a person notes that a glock is every bit as safe as other designs only so long as no rule of handling is ever broken and it is always stored is a special holster, then the additional dangers in use presented by the design are admitted.

I don't know about "special holsters"... I use the same types of holsters that I've use for other semi-auto pistols I've owned, and I can't think of any autoloader that I would carry without a proper holster which covered the trigger. I also can't think of any firearm that I would consider safe to break the established rules of firearm safety with.

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 11:28 AM
I just don't understand why S&W doesn't put a safety on these dangerous guns that shoot every time the trigger is pulled all the way back....


Length and weight of pull for your S&W revolver is very different than that of the Glock.

dasmi
September 11, 2007, 11:36 AM
Glocks are safe. People aren't.

mattro
September 11, 2007, 11:49 AM
I thought all guns were safe. guns can't go off by themselves. Just like SUV's can't kill people and pencils can't make mistakes.

Isn't that kind a obvious.

Out of 175 replies, I think "Glocks are safe, people aren't" has been about 30 of those replies.

zukiphile
September 11, 2007, 12:19 PM
Quote:
I just don't understand why S&W doesn't put a safety on these dangerous guns that shoot every time the trigger is pulled all the way back....

Length and weight of pull for your S&W revolver is very different than that of the Glock.

Indeed. As well, the double action on many revolvers exceeds 12 lbs.


Which is safer for carry?

1. A 1911, hammer cocked, chamber loaded, thumb safety on, or

2. a 1911, hammer cocked, chamber loaded, thumb safety off.

Does anyone carry the second way? If not, why?

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 12:40 PM
Does anyone carry the second way? If not, why?

Nope, can't say that I do. Why? Because I carry a Glock... duh :p

However, when I did carry a 1911 I didn't carry that way either, because the manufacturer didn't intend for the pistol to be carried in that fashion. It should be common sense not to carry a firearm in a condition the manufacturer didn't intend.

Davis
September 11, 2007, 12:53 PM
"I thought all guns were safe. guns can't go off by themselves."

Actually, they can. My great uncle in the panhandle of Florida had a Beretta 92 cook-off on the dash-board of his VW Rabbit pickup truck back in the middle 1980's Middle of summer during that head-wave evidently made it cook off. I would not have expected that to have happened, and was very doubtful that it had, until I saw the holes for myself. Evidently it cooked several rounds off, punching holes in different places on that truck.

But then, that definitely counts as a freak occurrence.

One thing I wonder, though, is why so many folks seem to hold so much scorn towards those of us who actually prefer a safety?

Davis

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 12:54 PM
It should be common sense not to carry a firearm in a condition the manufacturer didn't intend.

Gaston Glock did also not intend for people to shoot themselves, their friends and families, their furniture, the floor and their walls by accident yet it seems to happen.

MTMilitiaman
September 11, 2007, 01:11 PM
One thing I wonder, though, is why so many folks seem to hold so much scorn towards those of us who actually prefer a safety?

Because they openly question the professionalism and integrity of those who don't...

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 01:14 PM
Gaston Glock did also not intend for people to shoot themselves, their friends and families, their furniture, the floor and their walls by accident yet it seems to happen.

Nor did any other manufacturer, yet unsafe people (including the Vice President) manage to accomplish this with all manner of firearms.

zukiphile
September 11, 2007, 01:22 PM
Quote:
One thing I wonder, though, is why so many folks seem to hold so much scorn towards those of us who actually prefer a safety?

Because they openly question the professionalism and integrity of those who don't...

I think you are reading too much into a gunboard bs session. If someone publicly questions your integrity simply for having a different opinion, they are asking to be ignored.

As for the notion that you will carry an item the way the manufacturer intends you to (and like it! :D), I must disagree. If I find a manner safer to carry a glock that the way gaston envisioned, I will use whether Gaston takes me off the Christmas card list or not.

I don't know anyone who carries a 1911 with a loaded chamber and the thumb safety off. I think that is because it would be less safe that carrying with the thumb safety on. Does anyone seriously disagree?

To revisit the analogy, car manufacturers once intended you to use their product without seatbelts. That doesn't make driving without seatbelts just as safe as driving without.

281 Quad Cam
September 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
Why does SIG escape this persecution?

Their DA pulls are often no heavier than the Glock NY1 trigger's.

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 01:48 PM
As for the notion that you will carry an item the way the manufacturer intends you to (and like it! ), I must disagree. If I find a manner safer to carry a glock that the way gaston envisioned, I will use whether Gaston takes me off the Christmas card list or not.

Silly me. If I'm not comfortable with the way a manufacturer intended their firearm to be used I just go out and get one I'm comfortable with. It's not like there's a lack of selection in the market place. Hence I bought a Glock rather than attempting to carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked.

zukiphile
September 11, 2007, 01:49 PM
Silly me. If I'm not comfortable with the way a manufacturer intended their firearm to be used I just go out and get one I'm comfortable with. It's not like there's a lack of selection in the market place. Hence I bought a Glock rather than attempting to carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked.

What is the salient difference?


Why does SIG escape this persecution?

Their DA pulls are often no heavier than the Glock NY1 trigger's.

Yes, when will Glock's Holocaust of doubt end? Why the Auschwitz of questions? :D

"Persecution" may be a little dramatic.

A Sig da trigger is listed at 12 pounds and has a long travel. A Glock NY1 trigger is listed at 8 pounds and has much less travel.

Lots of Sig fans will tell you that you should have your thumb on the hammer as you holster to guard against an AD.

An article on trigger weights, if anyone is interested.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_50/ai_n6209982

RockyMtnTactical
September 11, 2007, 02:08 PM
Glocks are very safe. Mine haven't shot me yet.

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 02:26 PM
What is the salient difference?

Besides the obvious fact that one was designed to be carried that way and one wasn't? Besides the fact they're very different handgun designs? Besides the fact that internal safety devices can vary in 1911 pistols made by different manufactuers and even among different models from the same manufacturer? Besides the fact that a cocked 1911 hammer has enough energy to discharge a round and a partially cocked Glock striker does not? Besides the fact that a 1911 trigger can be pulled from edge and a Glock trigger cannot?

Not saying that a 1911 is a bad gun by any stretch of the imagination, but I certainly wouldn't even consider carrying cocked and unlocked. It's just not designed for that method of carry.

On the other hand, the Glock was designed to be carried with no manual safety. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people carry them in this manner around the world every single day and manage not to accidently shoot school children and puppies. Pretty amazing for such an "unsafe" handgun. :p

zukiphile
September 11, 2007, 02:34 PM
Not saying that a 1911 is a bad gun by any stretch of the imagination, but I certainly wouldn't even consider carrying cocked and unlocked. It's just not designed for that method of carry.


Now you understand the position of people who conclude that a Glock is not optimally designed for loaded carry.

The Glock has the trigger-on-a-trigger safety, but no grip safety, and lots of 1911s have firing pin safeties. Just as you wouldn't consider carrying a 1911 cocked and unlocked (a reasonable conclusion, IMO), others come to the same conclusion regarding a functionally similar Glock.

minsonngo
September 11, 2007, 02:51 PM
All you have to do is practice the basic rules of gun safety.

Keep your fingers off of the trigger, how hard is that?


If you can't follow the rules, you don't have any business owning or handling firearms.


Glocks are SAFE! I never had any safety issues with any of mine.



TO the OP... police officers are not the most knowledgable people on firearms. Some don't even shoot their guns except once a year to qualify with it. I woundn't be suprised if they shot themselves with any firearm.

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 02:54 PM
Now you understand the position of people who conclude that a Glock is not optimally designed for loaded carry.

No problem understanding the position, I simply disagree with it. Carrying a loaded Glock is safer than riding in a car, even with airbags and seatbelts. If I'm willing to do the latter multiple times a day every day, I don't see why I should be concerned about the former. As long as I continue to follow the four rules and treat my Glocks with the respect that all firearms deserve, then I'm confident they're not going to discharge unintentionally and accidently mow down any poor little kittens.

If somebody isn't confident in their ability to keep their finger off the trigger, then I fully agree that carrying a loaded Glock might not be the correct choice for them. In fact I'm pretty sure that thier friends, family and anybody else within range would likely agree, too.

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 03:16 PM
On the other hand, the Glock was designed to be carried with no manual safety. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people carry them in this manner around the world every single day and manage not to accidently shoot school children and puppies. Pretty amazing for such an "unsafe" handgun.

Tens of thousands if not millions of people manage every day to drive around and not need their seatbelt, what does that prove?

True Glock fans will never accept the possiblity of an error on the part of the designer. If every rule were followed there would be no accidents, just like driving. At the same time the engineers incorporate lots of things to help keep us alive in cars because we learned the hard way that not everybody always follows the rules.

Let's look at it this way, would it be a BAD thing if the Glock were designed so you didn't have to pull the trigger to disassemble it? Can we at least acknowledge that this would be a good thing?

ATW525
September 11, 2007, 03:20 PM
Let's look at it this way, would it be a BAD thing if the Glock were designed so you didn't have to pull the trigger to disassemble it? Can we at least acknowledge that this would be a good thing?

Doesn't bother me either way, as I've found it to be a non-issue. If it bothers you, buy a gun that doesn't require you to pull the trigger to disassemble it and be done with it. What's the big deal?

Alnamvet
September 11, 2007, 03:23 PM
Just read the manual, clear the weapon as you would any other auto, double check again that there is no round in the chamber, disassemble, and clean...is that really so hard? This thread is so much to do about nothing...those who adhere to gun safety never have issues...those who think they know it all typically have these problems.

onesiphorus
September 11, 2007, 03:52 PM
If you have an XD and you are gripping it, it's just as easily discharged as a Glock.

If you have a 1911 and are gripping it with the safety off, it's more easily discharged than a Glock.

If you have a TDA/SA and the hammer is back, it's more easily discharged than a Glock.

There are some DAO's that take greater force on the trigger to discharge i.e., KelTec.

There are others that don't: Kahr's, Smith M&P's and SVE's, Steyr...probably more.

Keep you finger out of the trigger well until you have the target in the sights!

Actually, I've had more malfunctions and heard of more Unintentional Discharges with 1911's than any other style of handgun

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 04:22 PM
Doesn't bother me either way, as I've found it to be a non-issue. If it bothers you, buy a gun that doesn't require you to pull the trigger to disassemble it and be done with it. What's the big deal?


I am certain it bothers the innocent bystanders who have been shot as a result of negligent discharges which occurred as a result of this human error and failure in engineering design.

MythBuster
September 11, 2007, 04:24 PM
The Glock is designed to fire if the trigger is pulled. It is designed NOT to fire without a trigger pull.

The fact that the vast majority of Glocks fire every time the trigger is pulled makes them good guns.

The fact that they are designed not to fire without a trigger pull makes them a safe gun.

Unsafe guns are unsafe because they can fire WITHOUT a trigger pull. A Davis .32 auto is such a gun. A Glock is not.

Davis
September 11, 2007, 06:07 PM
Since the Glock relies absolutely on the holster as a safety feature, that holster is a must at all times. I really don't care for the design but don't mind others liking it.

I prefer a safety. And yes, I have been shot at. And yes, I have been in SHTF situations. Don't want a safety? Fine, nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake, that does not make the Glock users wiser or more capable than others.

Davis

Silentarmy
September 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
I worked at a PD about 12 yrs ago with an officer who shot himself through the right thigh while preparing to field strip his Issue G17. He is referred to as " BAM BAM" to this day! That does not make the Glocks unsafe but in not clearing the weapon, He was unsafe and has a limp to prove it.

DaveShooter
September 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
Glocks are as safe as the person #1) Useing ones head and keeping finger
out of trigger guard til ready to fire weapon. People are just plain careless to again not be safe. A glock is like a double action revolver. Do not squeeze trigger unless ready to fire. Safety Safety Safety By all means first.
DaveShooter:D:D:D:D

Musketeer
September 11, 2007, 08:57 PM
I worked at a PD about 12 yrs ago with an officer who shot himself through the right thigh while preparing to field strip his Issue G17. He is referred to as " BAM BAM" to this day! That does not make the Glocks unsafe but in not clearing the weapon, He was unsafe and has a limp to prove it.

It was a bad mistake, all his own doing, and he is lucky to be all right. All that being said if he was not stripping a weapon that required him to pull the trigger to strip would this have happened?

BluesBear
September 11, 2007, 09:26 PM
Which is safer for carry?
1. A 1911, hammer cocked, chamber loaded, thumb safety on, or
2. a 1911, hammer cocked, chamber loaded, thumb safety off.
I don't know anyone who carries a 1911 with a loaded chamber and the thumb safety off. I think that is because it would be less safe that carrying with the thumb safety on. Does anyone seriously disagree?
Not saying that a 1911 is a bad gun by any stretch of the imagination, but I certainly wouldn't even consider carrying cocked and unlocked. It's just not designed for that method of carry.
Yet it seems there are those who steadfastly disagree with that philosophy. >>> http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259905


We were discussing this at the range yesterday since a few of the ROs carry a Glock while at work. For example yesterday morning one RO was carrying a Glock and the other a Springfield XD. For the night shift one had a Glock and the other had a DA revolver. (Can you guess which one of those was me?)
Both of the guys carrying a Glock stated that while they were always practiced safety around their guns they knew they had to be extra safe with their Glocks. The two Glock guys also stated that they were more concerned with shooters at the range with Glocks because they were less forgiving while being handled on the firing line.
Also one guy told a story that made us all go :eek:. It seems one day, a while ago, he had just finished cleaning his Glock. It was laying on the table as he put away his cleaning gear. It seems his dog sniffed it and then took a lick. Apparantly Hoppes smells better than it tastes. (that's not the :eek: part)
When the picked up the gun he discovered his dog had licked it hard enough to trip the striker. (that's the :eek: part)
So now put he's forced to use a different gun on his nightstand.


And for those still using the seatbelt argument, that contention is flawed logic. Very flawed. A seat belt is designed to protect you AFTER there is an incident not before. It only operates after the fact so it's a remedy. A seat belt doesn't prevent the driver from doing anything that could cause a collision.
A firearm safety is a prevention. You can't equate a prevention and a remedy.
Apples and Oranges. Or rather Apples and Antibiotics.
In order to properly compare a car with seat belts with a Glock (or any other firearm for that matter) you would need to use a statement somewhere on the order of, You should always wear body armor when carrying a gun. That way you'll be more safe in case there is an accident.

Ocraknife
September 11, 2007, 09:32 PM
as strong as hoppes smells I am more amazed that the dog licked it than I am that he tripped the stricker.

JohnKSa
September 11, 2007, 11:48 PM
In fact there are, comparatively, very few pistols that have 64% pre-tensioned strikers and highly ineffective trigger safeties. I’m surprised at you for saying that. This is the first time I’ve, ever, disagreed with anything you’ve said; but, this time, you’re way out on a limb.Kahr is one pistol that I have personal experience with that has a generally similar firing setup and a trigger pull that is very similar in pull weight to a Glock's. And Kahrs don't even have the trigger safety. I'm not going to complile a list, but suffice it to say that there are guns that will go bang just as easily or perhaps even easier than a Glock will.

The trigger safety is not "highly ineffective", it does what it's supposed to do and does it very well. It is NOT there to prevent the user from pulling the trigger. It is there to prevent trigger snags (in conjunction with a wider than typical trigger guard) and it's pretty good at the job. The trigger is not completely snag-proof, but it is remarkably snag resistant.

minsonngo
September 12, 2007, 12:50 AM
I am certain it bothers the innocent bystanders who have been shot as a result of negligent discharges which occurred as a result of this human error and failure in engineering design.

Why do you choose to blame the tool, when the senario you posted obviously points completely to user error? A tool does NOT act on it's own, it is an inanimate object. It takes an outside force (humans) to change that.

There is NO failure in the design of the Glock or any other firearm that functions similar to the Glock.

Just follow the basics rules of handling a firearm and there will be no problems. Finger off the trigger, treat every gun as if it is loaded, and don't point the muzzle at something you don't want to destroy. How hard is that? If you can't handle it, you shouldn't own or handle firearms since you are a danger to yourself and others.

SpectreBlofeld
September 12, 2007, 01:16 AM
Why do you choose to blame the tool, when the senario you posted obviously points completely to user error? A tool does NOT act on it's own, it is an inanimate object. It takes an outside force (humans) to change that.

Well, it is easier to add a manual safety, magazine disconnect safety, or heck, even grip safety than it is to eliminate human error.

JohnKSa
September 12, 2007, 01:51 AM
Well, it is easier to add a manual safety, magazine disconnect safety, or heck, even grip safety than it is to eliminate human error.Except that it's not an either or situation. Adding all those things doesn't prevent NDs.

The fact is that NDs are most often the result of a person INTENTIONALLY pulling the trigger of a gun (dryfiring) that they believe to be unloaded. There is no safety that will prevent that from resulting in an ND that won't also make the gun useless for its intended purpose.

minsonngo
September 12, 2007, 07:59 AM
Except that it's not an either or situation. Adding all those things doesn't prevent NDs.

The fact is that NDs are most often the result of a person INTENTIONALLY pulling the trigger of a gun (dryfiring) that they believe to be unloaded. There is no safety that will prevent that from resulting in an ND that won't also make the gun useless for its intended purpose.

Agreed!

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 08:21 AM
"It was a bad mistake, all his own doing, and he is lucky to be all right. All that being said if he was not stripping a weapon that required him to pull the trigger to strip would this have happened?"

Yes sooner or later this idiot would have shot himself or someone else. He pointed a loaded firearm at his leg and pulled the trigger without checking the chamber.

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 08:23 AM
Also whoever told you the story about the dog licking the Glock and tripping the striker is full of it.

Think about it for a while.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 08:24 AM
Except that it's not an either or situation. Adding all those things doesn't prevent NDs.

Absolutely correct. No mechanical safety on any tool will prevent all accidents. No one here denies that human error is pervasive. The issue is whether taking foreseeable human error into account in designing things for people is a good idea. As Dave noted,

People are just plain careless to again not be safe.

I'd have reduced that to "People are just plain careless ".

And for those still using the seatbelt argument, that contention is flawed logic. Very flawed. A seat belt is designed to protect you AFTER there is an incident not before. It only operates after the fact so it's a remedy. A seat belt doesn't prevent the driver from doing anything that could cause a collision.
A firearm safety is a prevention. You can't equate a prevention and a remedy.
Apples and Oranges. Or rather Apples and Antibiotics.
In order to properly compare a car with seat belts with a Glock (or any other firearm for that matter) you would need to use a statement somewhere on the order of, You should always wear body armor when carrying a gun. That way you'll be more safe in case there is an accident.

In order to understand an analogy, you have to first correctly identify its relevent elements. all subjects of anology are somehow different; otherwise they wouldn't be analogies. Distinguishing cars and guns on irrelevent bases such as other people drive, or seatbelts don't prevent crashes or cars have wheels and guns don't, or some other nonsense misses the lesson illustrated.

Things people use are commonly designed to make their use by people safer. Lots of safeties can be incorporated into guns that don't make them less effective. We all have our preferencesd on this. I like on the frame thumb and grip safeties; I've never found any of those to be an undue obstacle. I dislike magazine disconnects and slide mounted safeties, and am repelled by gunlocks and computerised ID rings.

So you wouldn't want a handgun to be as safe as a beachball or a blueberry muffin, a beachball or blueberry muffin being a poor choice for a handgun's intended use. On the other hand, you would not want it to present undue dangers. If you never make an error, and your glock is always holstered unless it is pointed at something you don't mind shooting, or you don't carry it loaded, then using a glock for carry presents no undue dangers.

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 08:38 AM
Well, it is easier to add a manual safety, magazine disconnect safety, or heck, even grip safety than it is to eliminate human error.
Except that it's not an either or situation. Adding all those things doesn't prevent NDs.

The fact is that NDs are most often the result of a person INTENTIONALLY pulling the trigger of a gun (dryfiring) that they believe to be unloaded. There is no safety that will prevent that from resulting in an ND that won't also make the gun useless for its intended purpose.


It is not an either or situation. It is a BOTH situation.

Sorry but people are not dying left and right because they cannot actuate the safety on their firearm. There are plenty of people having NDs, injured and killed because someone violated a rule AND there was not a mechanical safety/intelligent design which acted as a safety net.

I love the twisted logic some of the "Cult of Glock" here toss around... "Glocks are better because a manual safety can fail!" is one of the lines tossed around. Of course when it comes to making the rational statement that people are imperfect and prone to error, meaning a violation of the rules WILL occur from time to time, then it is simply unnaceptable. There are people here who seem to believe a piece of forged and milled steel functioning in a proven design a hundred years old is more likely to be a point of failure than human error... RIGHT!

Sorry, even if an ND only affected the shooter I would never agree that a Glock should be a new or casual shooter's gun. It is like handling a pit viper without gloves or gear, there is nothing but your skill between you and death. Unfortunately NDs also affect many others, from the third parties who are shot to their families. There are too many safety nets missing to make the Glock a safe weapon to entrust to a new or casual shooter.

1. Auto (meaning the famous "hidden round" when the mag is dropped)
2. No Manual Safety
3. Shorter and lighter pull than a DA revolver (a problem due to #2)
4. No Magazine Disconnect Safety. (Sorry but we all KNOW of plenty of NDs where some person dropped the mag and thought it empty FLAME ON!!!- See #1)
5. Design requires the trigger be pulled to disassemble!!! (In the running for Dumbest design feature EVER.)

Sorry but a casual/new shooter handling a Glock is like a garbage man handling plutonium.

For those who continue to attest the gun has nothing to do with safety as long as it mechanically functions properly how about this question:

Which car would you allow a your 16 year old son who just passed his road test to have for his personal use (money being no object)... a Ferrari or a Honda Civic? The Honda is obviously the SAFER car for the new 16 year old driver, just like the Glock is NOT the safer gun for the new or casual shooter to own.

Nobody is saying the Ferrari is not mechanically perfect, nor that it does not do everything it is supposed to do. We only know that cars, like guns, are designed to fill a function and fit a need. The needs of the casual/new shooter are not simply a gun that goes bang every time you pull the trigger but one that is easy to operate and compensates for the shooter's weaknesses. Anyone who does not admit that people are fallible is fooling themselves and utterly full of it. You would not believe the 16 year old kid with a liscense so new it smells from being laminated that he can handle the Ferrari nor should we believe anyone who is less than 100% committed to firearms handling with real experience should own a Glock (or other similar psitol with its list of less than desirable features for a new shooter.)

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 09:03 AM
Yes sooner or later this idiot would have shot himself or someone else. He pointed a loaded firearm at his leg and pulled the trigger without checking the chamber.

Sorry but there is no proof of that. Again, he was stupid, but he had to pull that trigger far more often when the gun was "not loaded" because it was required to do so to disassemble than if it were not.

ATW525
September 12, 2007, 09:17 AM
There are plenty of people having NDs, injured and killed because someone violated a rule AND there was not a mechanical safety/intelligent design which acted as a safety net.

How many is "plenty of people"? Again how much different is the ratio of ND's with Glocks compared to ratio with other types of firearms? Please provide facts and data, not analogies and emotional appeals.

SDC
September 12, 2007, 09:38 AM
Sorry but there is no proof of that. Again, he was stupid, but he had to pull that trigger far more often when the gun was "not loaded" because it was required to do so to disassemble than if it were not.

Huh? Your argument is analogous to saying that it's partly the CAR'S fault if someone runs over a child in the street. ???? If someone isn't willing to learn how to use something properly, it's that person at fault, and that goes for firearms as well as it does for vehicles, or chainsaws, or power tools, or anything else.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 09:48 AM
Quote:
Sorry but there is no proof of that. Again, he was stupid, but he had to pull that trigger far more often when the gun was "not loaded" because it was required to do so to disassemble than if it were not.

Huh? Your argument is analogous to saying that it's partly the CAR'S fault if someone runs over a child in the street.

It really isn't, unless your analogy involves a design feature that makes running over children easier.

I understand an allegience to a product with strong virtues. I don't understand a reluctance to acknowledge potential problems.

If glocks had frame mounted thumb safeties, would they be less effective as handguns?

Phrased differently, what is the advantage to carrying a hangun with no manual safety?

Alnamvet
September 12, 2007, 09:53 AM
...you know, a manual safety can be had for a mere $125.00, round trip travel to and from TRP included, approved by Glock, done by 10 Ring Precision. If it came standard with the safety, I am sure that there will be more negatives thrown Glock's way...just say it plainly, whomever you are...you don't care how safe or how reliable, or how well made the Glock is...you just don't like them. There now...don't we feel better?

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 09:56 AM
Alnamvet, I think the safety is a good idea. I still though think the Glock is a poor design for the masses because you need to pull the trigger to disasemble it.

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 09:58 AM
FYI, I actually have no intention of changing the minds of any of the people who think the Glock is perfect. Once you argue with someone you will never convince them.

I do hope that the arguments I have based in rational thought and the realities of human limitations helps someone uncertain of how to proceed to steer clear of the Glock as an intial weapon.

For people who want numbers please feel free to go through the link I gave to the article on the DC police and their transition. They saw a roughly 10%jump in NDs with the Glocks. You also know that every ND that occurred when the trigger was pulled intentionally as a part of disasembly would NOT have happened if that were not required. There may have been an accident at another time but it would have been no more likely than with another auto missing a manual safety and with a similar length and weight of pull.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 10:03 AM
If it came standard with the safety, I am sure that there will be more negatives thrown Glock's way...just say it plainly, whomever you are...you don't care how safe or how reliable, or how well made the Glock is...you just don't like them. There now...don't we feel better?

Really? I also don't understand the attribution of undisclosed motives.

My first post in this thread:

Quote:
...you are either incredibly unlucky, or incredibly stupid. ...or God hates you.

At various times, I've seen evidence that each of these applies to me.

I shot a 24 weekly, some would say weakly, for years. It was in some ways brilliant, both reliable and accurate, and in other ways just odd.

Not having an external safety other than the trigger is an oddity I never warmed to. I believe that trait sold a lot of XDs.

I like glocks and never had an AD with one, but think they could be better.

SDC
September 12, 2007, 10:43 AM
Alnamvet, I think the safety is a good idea. I still though think the Glock is a poor design for the masses because you need to pull the trigger to disasemble it.

How is this ANY different from saying that "I think all handguns are a poor design for the masses because they should be unloaded before you disassemble them"? If someone is such a putz that they don't follow the four basic rules, then NOTHING, including a Nerf suit, is going to stop them from hurting themselves or someone else.

SDC
September 12, 2007, 10:47 AM
It really isn't, unless your analogy involves a design feature that makes running over children easier.

Not at all; a gun is designed to propel a projectile at high speed in the direction that gun is pointing, just as a vehicle is designed to propel itself and its passengers; if the operator of either one of those items is so careless that they don't operate them properly, is it the operator's fault, or is it the item's fault?

JohnKSa
September 12, 2007, 10:56 AM
Sorry but people are not dying left and right because they cannot actuate the safety on their firearm. There are plenty of people having NDs, injured and killed because someone violated a rule AND there was not a mechanical safety/intelligent design which acted as a safety net.You didn't read my previous post.

Most NDs happen when people are INTENTIONALLY pulling the trigger (dryfiring) on a gun that they believe to be unloaded. People who dryfire guns eliminate all the "safety nets" so that the gun will behave as it does when it normally fires. Add as many manual safeties as you like and the person will disable them all to dryfire. You can't dryfire with manual safeties engaged.

The problem is failure to follow rule 1 and 2 of the three basic firearm safety rules, it is not a problem with the gun. Proliferating manual safeties can not prevent carelessness nor compensate for it.

Lastly, people are not "dying left and right" because of Glock NDs. If you make a statement and are called on it, you must provide the supporting evidence that proves you're not simply making things up. Before you continue in this particular vein (claiming that people are dying left and right due to Glock NDs), you must answer the following two questions or provide some other reasonable and applicable statistic/evidence to support your assertion.

1. How many Glock NDs happen every year?
2. What percentage of Glock NDs result in death?...is like handling a pit viper without gloves or gear, there is nothing but your skill between you and death. Absolutely incorrect. It is not SKILL that prevents NDs, it is adherence to ONE very simple gun safety rule. Adhering to ONE other very simple gun safety rule will prevent injury even if an ND occurs. In effect, following only two rules will both prevent NDs and insure that in the very unlikely even that the gun malfunctions and fires that no injuries will result.

This is getting ridiculous. Following the basic gun safety rules is nothing like handling a pit viper without gloves. The rules are very simple and do not require any special skill to follow. One need not be SKILLED, one need only be careful.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 11:09 AM
Quote:
It really isn't, unless your analogy involves a design feature that makes running over children easier.

Not at all; a gun is designed to propel a projectile at high speed in the direction that gun is pointing, just as a vehicle is designed to propel itself and its passengers;...

Yes. It is also true that each device is generally designed so that it may be safely operated by a person of normal attention and competence.

A car with a broken windshield can be operated safely. You just need to know that your ability to see the things ahead of you is restricted, and that you should proceed slowly, stopping and looking out of your side window if you have any doubts. Follow these rules, and the car is safe.

If a fellow with a broken windshield hits a child he did not see, we can cite the broken windshield as a contributing cause, and it is no defense to driving with a broken windshield to note that a perfect and circumspect driver could have still avoided the accident.

if the operator of either one of those items is so careless that they don't operate them properly, is it the operator's fault, or is it the item's fault?

If you assume your own premise, you will get the answer you start with.

If people use an item with the ordinary care, normal attention and reasonable competence and still routinely suffer injury, the item is a contributing cause to the injury.

All guns, even ones with external manual safeties, have this problem. It doesn't improve anyone's odds of avoiding unintended injury to remove external manual safeties.

JohnKSa
September 12, 2007, 11:13 AM
It is also true that each device is generally designed so that it may be safely operated by a person of normal attention and competence.I'd be the first to agree that a person who does not have "normal attention and competence" should not handle guns of ANY kind.If a fellow with a broken windshield hits a child he did not see, we can cite the broken windshield as a contributing cause, and it is no defense to driving with a broken windshield to note that a perfect and circumspect driver could have still avoided the accident.Incorrect analogy. Glocks are not BROKEN.If people use an item with the ordinary care, normal attention and reasonable competence and still routinely suffer injury, the item is a contributing cause to the injury.Correct. And since "normal attention and reasonable competence" when handling firearms is DEFINED to be following the basic rules of gun safety it is clear that a person of "normal attention and reasonable competence" will not suffer injury when handling or using a Glock.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 11:23 AM
Quote:
If a fellow with a broken windshield hits a child he did not see, we can cite the broken windshield as a contributing cause, and it is no defense to driving with a broken windshield to note that a perfect and circumspect driver could have still avoided the accident.
Incorrect analogy. Glocks are not BROKEN.

It isn't incorrect; it is distinguishable. The trait you've distinguished is irrelevent to the analogy. If cars were sold new with severely cracked windshields, that state wouldn't be 'broken", strictly speaking.

Quote:
If people use an item with the ordinary care, normal attention and reasonable competence and still routinely suffer injury, the item is a contributing cause to the injury.

Correct. And since "normal attention and reasonable competence" when handling firearms is DEFINED to be following the basic rules of gun safety it is clear that a person of "normal attention and reasonable competence" will not suffer injury when handling or using a Glock.

I hope you see the circularity in that.

JohnKSa
September 12, 2007, 11:29 AM
If cars were sold new with severely cracked windshields, that state wouldn't be 'broken", strictly speaking.Ridiculous. If you went to a car lot and looked at a new car with a cracked windshield what would you say to the salesman?

Broken is broken no matter how one dances around it. Glocks are not broken, they simply have a manual of arms that some don't like. I DO find it interesting that we rarely see people complaining about Kahrs being inherently unsafe although they have an identical manual of arms as Glocks (including the trigger pull to takedown) nor is it common to see people stating that the Ruger semi-auto .22 pistols are dangerous because one must pull the trigger to strip the gun.I hope you see the circularity in that.Nonsense. The argument is well constructed and uses universally accepted definitions. The only way you can answer it is to prove that a person handling a gun can be exhibiting "normal attention and competence" (your words) while failing to follow the BASIC rules of gun safety.

FS2K
September 12, 2007, 11:57 AM
You can't get any more basic than JohnSKa's point:

If you don't follow the BASIC safety rules for handling a firearm, chances are, sooner or later, bad things will happen.

This point goes beyond brand names and the numerous safety device designs being implemented into various current designs.

Most of us learned these rules back when we got our first BB-Gun as it was what filled the first few pages of our owners manual.

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.



2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed.



3. Be sure of your target and know what lies behind it.



4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on target


5. Be sure your guns are never accessible to unauthorized or untrained individuals.

These basic rules apply to ALL firearms from Daisy BB-Guns to .50 BMG's, and it answers the question to whether or not Glock's are unsafe.

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 12:23 PM
Human error will always exists. Any who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. Even if you are perfect, the guy on the line next to you, or in the house next door may not be. Building a mechanical device which performs its basic function and accounts for human error is a smart thing to do. Can anyone give a valid reason why it is not?

Nothing can eliminate all human error. There were NDs with DAO revolvers also as my moron cousing who was in the NYPD can attest (and has the shoe with the groove in it to prove). We should do what we can to account for as many errors as possible without ruining the function of the device for its intended purpose. If the Glock's action was a TRUE DAO, where the trigger drew the hammer back fully and it normally was in an at rest position, meaning it would not need to be pulled to dissasemble, would this be so bad?

SpectreBlofeld
September 12, 2007, 12:34 PM
http://spectreblofeld.googlepages.com/glock.jpg

I love MS-Paint.

I'm being silly because I think we've worn this one out.

They do kinda look like candy bars already.

Hard Ball
September 12, 2007, 12:46 PM
"4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on target"

Doing this in a gunfight at 3 or 4 feet is simply suicifal,

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 12:54 PM
I really don't care if you are a DC cop, Navy SEAL, or just the average guy if you pull the trigger on a firearm without checking the chamber you are a MORON that has no business with a firearm.

It is that simple. If you don't know enough about firearms to check the chamber before you pull the trigger you don't need one.

How a semi auto pistol works, how it feeds rounds from the mag into the chamber is something that can be taught to a room full of first graders in a half hour.

Adults too stupid to learn it should not carry a gun.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 12:54 PM
Quote:
If cars were sold new with severely cracked windshields, that state wouldn't be 'broken", strictly speaking.

Ridiculous. If you went to a car lot and looked at a new car with a cracked windshield what would you say to the salesman?

"I didn't know that Glock made cars too!"?:D

John, that you would find unacceptable a condition in a new automobile that would make it more likely that momentary inattention could result in injury is exactly the point being made. The illustration was provided for a limited purpose.

Broken is broken no matter how one dances around it.

I used the word broken to describe a condition in which a windshield is severly cracked. That condition in a new car would be considered a defect or poor design.

Glocks are not broken, ...

Though they may not be optimally designed.

Quote:
I hope you see the circularity in that.

Nonsense. The argument is well constructed ....

Even if you do say so yourself? ;)

...uses universally accepted definitions. The only way you can answer it is to prove that a person handling a gun can be exhibiting "normal attention and competence" (your words) while failing to follow the BASIC rules of gun safety.

That is incorrect. First you've extracted "my words" and inserted them into a statement of your own position.

I actually stated,

If people use an item with the ordinary care, normal attention and reasonable competence and still routinely suffer injury, the item is a contributing cause to the injury.

We all agree on the importance of observing the rules of gun handling. We can stress their importance, and teach them at every opportunity. That should prevent us from addressing safety in design.

We also know that reasonably competent people who exercise ordinary care and normal attention still have lapses and accidents. Does anyone really dispute that?

An optimal design will minimise the harm resulting from those foreseeable lapses without making the tool less effective. More often there is some sort of trade off. Air bags add weight, expense and complexity to car, but not wearing your windscreen as a neckless in highspeed crashes makes them acceptable to many people.

Let's acknowledge your point that many NDs are the result of someone who thought they were going to dry fire, but didn't check the barrel. (I actually object to loaded chamber indicators since they imply that you don't need to actually check the chamber and could erode good safety practice.)

Would an external manual safety make a Glock less effective? How would it compromise function such that you would object to incorporating that into the design?

greenparrot
September 12, 2007, 12:59 PM
FYI, I actually have no intention of changing the minds of any of the people who think the Glock is perfect. Once you argue with someone you will never convince them.


No one thinks the Glock is perfect. The gun was designed this way on PURPOSE. It is designed to go "bang" when someone pulls the trigger. Who are you to sit here and say the design is flawed when Gaston and his company purposely designed the their firearm to function exactly this way?

If you don't like Glocks, that is fine. Don't sit here and bash it. Shoot what you like and let others shoot what they want to. It is as simple as that.

Guns with manual safeties can be considered NOT optimally designed too. What if you are in a situation where you had to shoot to defend yourself BUT you forgot to disengage the safety? Same goes for the magazine disconnect feature. What if you had to defend yourself from a BG but he is able to drop you mag rendering your firearm useless. DO YOU consier this design optimal?

In the end, you can't say a design is NOT optimal. What may be optimal to you, may NOT be optimal to another person.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 01:12 PM
If you don't like Glocks, that is fine. Don't sit here and bash it.

As I noted above, that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.

Shoot what you like and let others shoot what they want to. It is as simple as that.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that you should not be able to purchase a Glock as currently designed, except (ironically) those who defend the design as appropriate for those not subject to human error.

Guns with manual safeties can be considered NOT optimally designed too. What if you are in a situation where you had to shoot to defend yourself BUT you forgot to disengage the safety?

I agree that some safety designs aren't good either. I very much like the 1911 frame safety. I never had a problem swiping downward on that lever after drawing. Is that kind of safety an obstacle to efficient function?

In the end, you can't say a design is NOT optimal.

Maybe you didn't mean exactly that. Different people may consider different designs optimal. A rational person wouldn't consider a seat belt made of concertina wire optimal.

ATW525
September 12, 2007, 01:35 PM
I actually object to loaded chamber indicators since they imply that you don't need to actually check the chamber and could erode good safety practice.

Funny, I object to manual safeties since they imply that you don't need to actually keep your finger off the trigger and could erode good safety practice.

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 01:51 PM
No one thinks the Glock is perfect. The gun was designed this way on PURPOSE. It is designed to go "bang" when someone pulls the trigger. Who are you to sit here and say the design is flawed when Gaston and his company purposely designed the their firearm to function exactly this way?

I can say what I want about Glocks and if you don't like it then tough. For it's intended use and targetted market I believe it is flawed. As an engineer who learned to account for human capabilities and error in design I see it as a design that is not suited for use by the general public for general carry, this includes the majority of LEOs out there who do not stay on top of their gun handling skills.

The gun is designed fine for use in harsh enviorments by those with a high level of competence. It is also well designed for use at the range, when after the last shot is fired it is put into its case empty and taken home to be cleaned and put in the safe. It is a land mine waiting to be stepped upon though in any other case. It will do just what a land mine does, explode when stepped on. It is my opinion that GLocks, like landmines, should not be left laying around one's home or person waiting for one to make a mistake and "step in the wrong place."

If you don't like Glocks, that is fine. Don't sit here and bash it. Shoot what you like and let others shoot what they want to. It is as simple as that.

Again I can say what I want about it, sorry that bothers you. You can shoot it if you want and though I disagree with you I hope you never have a ND. I would certainly prefer if the gun shop and Glock did not push these upon every new gun buyer as the ultimate answer to handgunning since I will probably be in the area of these people as they use this most unforgiving of tools.

Guns with manual safeties can be considered NOT optimally designed too. What if you are in a situation where you had to shoot to defend yourself BUT you forgot to disengage the safety? Same goes for the magazine disconnect feature. What if you had to defend yourself from a BG but he is able to drop you mag rendering your firearm useless. DO YOU consier this design optimal?

The same arguments put forward for years and consistently knocked down. These were actually the arguments used to prevent autos from even being issued to LEOs. Talk to the ISP who found no problems switching to autos with safeties. Talk to the officers on the ISP who were saved when they dropped their mag in a scuffle only to have the gun not function after loosing it. There are plenty of cases of both with the ISP. Those were real nice features and did plenty to help S&W with their auto sales to departments. When now did a BG drop the mag on the citizen's gun renderring it inoperable? Please site the case. Citizens generally don't get into physical encounters when it is a shooting situation since they are not trying to apprehend anyone.

In the end, you can't say a design is NOT optimal. What may be optimal to you, may NOT be optimal to another person.

I certainly can say it is not optimal for the use of general carry by the majority of the public it is sold to and I just did. I backed up my statement with reasons that are only counterred by this inane mantra that NDs happen only because people violate the rules while those spewing it never seem to acknowledge that people are not perfect. There have been plenty of people on this very board who have been kind enough to admit a ND as a part of helping others to learn.

There are two types of shooters:

Those who have had a Negligent Discharge.

Those who have not YET had a Negligent Discharge.

I am not saying everyone WILL have one, but everyone has the certain potential to do so because of basic human fallibility. That though doesn't exist in the Cult of Glock!

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 01:59 PM
The S&W M&P pistol is a SINGLE ACTION with a shorter and sometimes lighter trigger pull than a Glock. It has no manaul safety.

Why are we not hearing how dangerous they are?

Why are we not hearing about how dangerous the new Steyr without the manaul safety is. It has a shorter and lighter trigger than the Glock.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 02:01 PM
Sounds as if we just have.

MythBuster
September 12, 2007, 02:10 PM
No. It is almost always the Glock that is thougt of a dangerous.

zukiphile
September 12, 2007, 02:26 PM
No. It is almost always the Glock that is thougt of a dangerous.

Why do you think that is?

Let me extrapolate from my own experience.

I've owned a Glock, and have described it in glowing terms many times before. Most guys I've shot with have owned or do own at least one.

On the other hand I've handled three Kahrs, one S&W knock-off (I don't like their version of the trigger), and one Steyr. I imagine that Glock is typically addressed because that is the one with which people have experience.

Musketeer
September 12, 2007, 02:29 PM
The Glock has the attention because it is the most widely distributed and known incarnation of the DAO, striker fired, manual safety free, automatic. Any issues I have with it which are shared by other guns equally apply to those others.

Why are you hearing more about the Glock than anything else in this thread?

1. Look at the title of the thread.

2. It is easier to say Glock than "DAO, striker fired, short & light pull automatic lacking manual safeties and requiring the trigger to be pulled to dissasemble." :)

minsonngo
September 12, 2007, 02:47 PM
If Glock made a flawed gun that is unsafe, they would have been sued in the past for negligence. This has never happened because the design of the gun is not flawed.

seeker_two
September 12, 2007, 02:56 PM
You know...if we'd just stayed with our Single-Action Army sixguns, none of these Glock "tragedies" would have happened.... :p

Gaston Glock set out to design a rugged, reliable, easy-to-shoot pistol. He succeeded. He didn't set out to make the Glock the "perfect gun" for everyone, despite what his advertising department says :rolleyes: . If you like Glocks, enjoy. If not (like me), then shoot something else. If you have an unfortunate habit of having an ND every time you pick one up (like I do with HK P7's :o ), then keep your mitts off da Glock.

Besides, according to Guns & Ammo TV , the perfect gun is the M&P.... :p

Davis
September 12, 2007, 03:29 PM
"If Glock made a flawed gun that is unsafe, they would have been sued in the past for negligence. This has never happened because the design of the gun is not flawed."

Ah, so then explain all the "upgrades"...

Glock's are fine. The broken wind-shield is a bad example. A car sold with a blind-spot, however, is not. Take the current Jeep Grand Cherokee. It has a tremendous blind spot, two, at the rear. Kid gets run-over because he runs into that blind-spot. Defect in design.

Now, I'm not going to go so far as others against Glock. Yet, a pistol which requires a holster as a safety device is not one I wish to own. You cannot carry a Glock safely in just any old holster. That is what I consider a design defect. Did they intend it to be that way? Probably. Does it make the Glock optimal? Not hardly. Indeed, I consider it a liability that Glock pistols MUST be carried in specific styles of holsters to be safe.

Of course, to each his own. Those who like carrying Glocks, more power to you. It certainly is reliable and rugged.

Davis

greenparrot
September 12, 2007, 04:45 PM
I still don't understand why people blame the gun when it is completely human error.

It is like fat people blaming McDonald's or food for their weight issues. All you have to do is change your eating habits and you wouldn't have that problem.

People need to learn that they are responsible for themselves and quit blaming their issues on others and inanimate objects.