What I Don't Like About Glock...

[shurshot]

"Reality" is a matter of personal perception. Enjoy your coffee.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by shurshot

"Reality" is a matter of personal perception. Enjoy your coffee.

I guess I'll beat this horse again. The reality of it is millions of people carry/use/shoot striker fired weapons and the instance of AD is no higher with striker than with any other design. There's a reason why the below focuses on carelessness, training, etc, and not 'design'..because design isn't a factor.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/safet...re-both-wrong/

You mention cigarettes, asbestos and Oxycontin...and imply, as 'perceptions change', like these dangerous things, people will come to their senses and the hammer fired/external safety will magically be the dominant design..

Well, hasn't happened, strikers have been around for a 'while'.

The first commercial success in this type of pistol was the Glock 17. But the Glock wasn’t the first striker-fired pistol, or even the first polymer and striker-fired pistol. H&K produced a pistol that was polymer framed and striker fired in 1970.

Whether you like striker-fired guns or not, the system is here to stay, and as an enduring fan of the 1911, I’ve come to realize that striker-fired guns are much more suitable than other systems for military, law enforcement and civilians for almost every application.

Just a bunch of dumb smokers who build houses with asbestos while being laced on Oxy?

Use what you like but as I mentioned, with 3 internal safetys, striker fired guns are here to stay and their popularity is growing while the popularity of CCW(increasing), using something with an external safety, is shrinking..in favor of strikers..

Like so many foods and nutrients, too much coffee can cause problems, especially in the digestive tract.

OMG, OMG...

[dgludwig]

In my opinion, most people, including LEO's, are much better off carrying either a double action semiutomatic, a 1911A1 format single action, or a double action revolver.

I agree completely.

[shurshot]

USNret93; Since you kicked the dead horse (he still didn't budge), I'll try to roust him.
You mention 3 "internal" safety's in striker fired Glocks. Great sales pitch. What about external????? Bottom line is, if the light (single action mode, that's essentially what it is), trigger is pulled, intentionally or not and a round is in the chamber, the gun WILL fire. There is no other safety, aside from that trigger / joke they consider a "safety". I don't consider this "safe" for your average individual or pro. But to each their own. Some are comfortable and carry them with confidence. Not me.
Unlike many of the popular striker fired pistols, the 1911 has an external thumb safety, requiring a separate movement to fire the gun, and NOT relying on ONLY the trigger finger discipline during a stressful situation. When cocked and locked, (condition #1), in a holster, the 1911 is in a FAR safer condition than a striker fired weapon like the Glock or M&P in a holster. The 1911 pistol sports a external hammer, alerting an LEO or CCW permit holders of the pistol’s condition. This provides an increased layer of safety when reholstering as the shooter can manually use the thumb to hold back the hammer. Not so with a Glock. God forbid a piece of clothing gets caught in the striker fired pistols trigger guard as one reholsters, pulling that trigger!
The 1911 has several safeties, internal and external (thumb, grip and disconnecter), and requires intentional action to discharge, unlike most striker fired pistols, which are easier to accidentally fire as numerous agencies have documented.
The striker fired weapons are good pertaining to accuracy, durability and adaptability for troops with various hand sizes., I'll admit that. My duty issue S&W M&P is super accurate. I shoot it well. Grip feels good, but the trigger is no where near as smooth as on my S&W revolvers or 1911A1. I carry what I'm issued on duty, but it wouldn't be my first choice. And off duty, no striker fired plastic gun for me... I carry revolvers, a Sig 220, Beretta M9, or one of my 1911's.
My point is, that without extensive training (and sometimes even with, given the high number of accidental discharges LEO's have had), striker fired weapons are more dangerous than 1911's, double action pistols and revolvers. Just my opinion. I have seen them negligently discharged. Not fun to be around. Most important safety is between our ears, but that being said... accidents happen. Be safe!

[JohnKSa]

Bottom line is, if the light (single action mode) trigger is pulled...

If you have to sneak a lot of premises into your statements to make them sound reasonable, then that is a clue to you, and others, that your statements have trouble standing on their own.

The Glock trigger is not "single action mode". It may appear to act like a single action trigger externally, but approximately half of the striker spring compression by distance and approximately 75% of the striker spring compression by energy is performed by the trigger. You can verify this with your own measurements if you're skeptical.

The Glock trigger is not especially light. Measured conventionally, an unmodified Glock trigger runs about 6.5lbs, advertising claims and internet hyperbole aside.

When cocked and locked, (condition #1), in a holster, the 1911 is in a FAR safer condition than a striker fired weapon like the Glock or M&P in a holster.

This is a difficult premise to support given that neither of the guns can possibly discharge in this condition without parts breakages.

This provides an increased layer of safety when reholstering as the shooter can manually use the thumb to hold back the hammer. Not so with a Glock. God forbid a piece of clothing gets caught in the striker fired pistols trigger guard as one reholsters, pulling that trigger!

It is true, IMO, that holstering a conventional striker-fired gun without a manual safety requires more care than holstering a gun with a manual safety and a hammer. I've commented before that holstering is probably one of the most hazardous things we do as firearm owners.

The 1911 has several safeties (thumb, grip and disconnecter), and requires intentional action to discharge, unlike most striker fired pistols.

All guns that are drop-safe require some sort of intentional action to discharge unless something breaks.

As far as the additional safeties making a gun safer, that is only true if the safeties are all used properly. This is one of the contradictions of this argument.

Argument. A gun with a more complicated manual of arms involving manual safeties is safer than a gun with a simple manual of arms involving no manual safeties.

Problem: If a person can't figure out how to do something as simple as keep their finger off the trigger, why does it make sense to assume that they can learn something more complicated such as engaging/disengaging a manual safety properly AND still learn to keep their finger off the trigger?

My point is, that without extensive training (and sometimes even with, given the high number of accidental discharges LEO's have had), striker fired weapons are more dangerous than 1911's, double action pistols and revolvers.

If you have the evidence, that when corrected for the number of pistols in use, striker fired weapons are accidentally discharged at a higher rate, please post it. I'm not talking about anecdotes, or listing a number of incidents you found on the web;

Real evidence would be much more useful than handwaving around the issue and making the same unsupported assertions repeatedly as if the repetition will give them validity even in the absence of real evidence.

I have seen them negligently discharged.

Anecdotes are not evidence of anything other than possibility. An anecdote proves that something CAN happen, it doesn't prove that it's a likely outcome or that it's more likely than another possible outcome.

For example, I've only seen two NDs in person. One was with a double action revolver, the other was with a hammer-fired DA/SA pistol with a manual safety. That doesn't prove that double action pistols and hammer-fired DA/SA pistols with manual safeties are more dangerous than other kinds of guns, it's far too small of a sample size. Even if it were a MUCH larger sample size, it would still need to be corrected for the number of types of guns I've seen in situations that could possibly lead to unintentional discharges. All it proves is that it's possible to unintentionally fire those two kinds of guns under certain circumstances.

In other words, if I collect data from a population of 100 guns where 90 are striker-fired and only 10 fall into other categories, then if I end up with 5unintentional discharges with striker fired guns and one from the other category, the temptation is to believe that the striker-fired guns are 5X more dangerous.

In reality, that outcome would actually make the striker fired guns almost 2 times SAFER. That's because the rate of unintentional discharges for the striker fired guns is 5/90 (5.6%) while the rate of unintentional discharges for the other types is 1/10 (10%). You have to correct for the number of guns in use to have any chance of being able to accurately interpret the data.

This is a problem when trying to collect "informal" data using anecdotes and looking for incidents without doing a very thorough data collection effort. Inevitably, the most popular types of guns are going to be over-represented in the data, regardless of what kind of data is being collected.

What it comes down to is if you handle striker-fired guns properly, they are safe. If you handle hammer-fired guns with manual safeties properly, they are safe. Handle either kind improperly and YOU are unsafe.

Anyway, while we like to go on and on about how design aspects are really a big factor in unintentional discharges, the bottom line is that the majority of unintentional discharges are the result, not of the peculiar design characteristics of the firearm in question, but of the user intentionally pulling the trigger (e.g. dry-firing). There are no safeties (manual or passive) that can protect against that.

[shurshot]

[U][/"U]If you have to sneak a lot of premises into your statements to make them sound reasonable, then that is a clue to you, and others, that your statements have trouble standing on their own."

The Glock I used to own was 5 pounds (trigger pull). And externally, it did act as a "single action". Once again... Semantics... Nitpicking over Semantics to make oneself sound sanctimonious often has the opposite effect.


"Real evidence would be much more useful than handwaving around the issue and making the same unsupported assertions repeatedly as if the repetition will give them validity even in the absence of real evidence."

Pretty sure I was clear I was just making my opinion known, based upon personal experience and preferences, not writing an op end piece for The BBC or CNN, hence no statistics. I posted a couple of links to articles depicting accidental discharges with striker fired weapons, involving LEO's who had been trained in their safe handling and use.
The title of this thread is "What I don't like about Glock". I assumed, apparently incorrectly, was that it was open to personal opinions, and comments were not subject to statistical analysis and backing. . Just my 2 cents worth. Not charging a nickle, only 2 cents.
This was what I wrote. "[I]My point is, that without extensive training (and sometimes even with, given the high number of accidental discharges LEO's have had), striker fired weapons are more dangerous than 1911's, double action pistols and revolvers. Just my opinion." [/I

So without "Real Evidence", statistics, etc., our opinions and experiences are not worth posting? I was clear it was my opinion.

B][/B]"As far as the additional safeties making a gun safer, that is only true if the safeties are all used properly."
???? Are you implying that one would carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked??? Grip safety taped down, is that what you mean, provided we are comparing striker fired to a 1911??
Not sure I'm following your premise based statement. ???

[B""that the majority of unintentional discharges are the result, not of the peculiar design characteristics of the firearm in question, but of the user intentionally pulling the trigger (e.g. dry-firing). There are no safeties (manual or passive) that can protect against that."


Absolutely correct, similar to what many of us have written.

__________________

[JohnKSa]

I assumed, apparently incorrectly, was that it was open to personal opinions, and comments were not subject to statistical analysis and backing.

Fair enough. I see that you did include the caveat: "Just my opinion." right after you made the comment.

The Glock I used to own was 5 pounds...

An unmodified Glock with a straight 5lb trigger is pretty unusual. Even the simple modifications intended to lighten the trigger pull don't usually get down to a straight 5lb trigger. It usually takes a combination of modifications to get to 5lbs or below.

I'm not going to state categorically that there are no stock Glocks with 5lb triggers--it's unlikely and it's not something I've ever seen but I suppose it's possible. That said, the possible existence of outliers doesn't change the norm.

And externally, it did act as a "single action".

It does appear to act as a single action from an external perspective, but that's an example of why there's a common saying that appearances can be deceiving. The trigger does a lot of the work of compressing the striker spring by any metric one chooses to employ.

Are you implying that one would carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked???

I suppose that's one way a person could use manual safeties improperly. I wasn't specifically thinking about that example.

If a person doesn't use the manual safeties on a gun properly they can create situations where the safeties provide no benefit or they may directly create unsafe situations. There are a number of ways one could do this: failing to use a safety at all, failing to disengage a safety when it should be disengaged, disengaging a safety when it shouldn't be disengaged, relying on a safety to ameliorate obviously unsafe behavior, expecting a safety to do something it isn't designed to do, disabling a safety, etc.

Anyway, the point was that if a person can't manage something as simple as keeping their finger off the trigger, the idea that adding complexity (more things to learn) is going to help with that problem is somewhat contradictory. If a person can't do something very simple it doesn't make sense to expect them to do something more complicated as well as still doing the simple thing. After all, even in a gun with manual safeties, the trigger finger rule still applies.

[shurshot]

The Glock was used, but I doubt it had been modified as it was like new. Possible though. This was in the early 90's, a 19. Measured 5 pounds on my trigger scale, which was pretty accurate.

[USNRet93]

trigger is pulled, intentionally or not and a round is in the chamber, the gun WILL fire.

Yup, just like any gun.

I don't consider this "safe" for your average individual or pro. But to each their own

Correct, my gun is safe to carry and shoot..all these 'examples need to be correctly identified as 'negligent discharge, not 'accidental'..strikers don't just do off w/o pulling the trigger.

This provides an increased layer of safety when reholstering as the shooter can manually use the thumb to hold back the hammer. Not so with a Glock

Correct, and that's why I choose the holster I do..to make sure the gun is safe to reinsert into the holster.

God forbid a piece of clothing gets caught in the striker fired pistols trigger guard as one reholsters, pulling that trigger!

Yup, 'negligent'...put video of guy shooting himself in the leg with a 1911 here.

The 1911 has several safeties, internal and external (thumb, grip and disconnecter), and requires intentional action to discharge, unlike most striker fired pistols, which are easier to negligently fire as numerous agencies have documented.

FIFY..strikers need 'intentional action to discharge' also..pull the trigger.

Most important safety is between our ears, but that being said... accidents happen. Be safe

I agree..some guns may have more 'safetys' than others. The safest is one w/o a round in the chamber, unless you are one handed and cannot rack the slide.

MY final point is similar to yours..Use, shoot, carry what you are comfy with, what you are trained to use. BUT nothing is inherently dangerous about the striker DESIGN..'negligent' use..that applies to every gun. BUT strikers are used far more in LEO, military, around the globe than hammer/external safety type guns. More NDs? maybe cuz more strikers.. BUT strikers have been carried and used by thousands for decades..and the design is MORE popular now than ever. Alomost every(every?) major gun manufacturer has a striker gun in their lineup..why is that? Maybe cuz they are safe and easy.

Seen some NGs? I saw a lady put a round in the ceiling the other day at the range..with a 1911..WAY to big for her...trying to shoot it to make her male friend happy..should have seen her hand shake. Shot it, lots of barrel rise, pulled the trigger again, while pointed...up...Negligent.

Finally, thanks for your service as a LEO..tough job...

Anyway, the point was that if a person can't manage something as simple as keeping their finger off the trigger, the idea that adding complexity (more things to learn) is going to help with that problem is somewhat contradictory. If a person can't do something very simple it doesn't make sense to expect them to do something more complicated as well as still doing the simple thing. After all, even in a gun with manual safeties, the trigger finger rule still applies.

BTW-JohnSKa above said it better than me...

[Tactical Jackalope]

Tactical Jackalope wrote
"I have my Glock 19 appendix".
I hope you don't have any accidental discharges, or you may have to change your name to "Tactical Enoch:! LOL!!!

Well, don't hex me! I'd never want to lose my lope rope!

I did once reholster my gun (DA/SA) in SA and not know it during a class. So I guess it can happen to anyone at any time.

[stephen426]

I bought a Springfield Armory XDs in .45 ACP because it had a grip safety. I liked the idea that it was one extra built in safety that COULD prevent an accidental discharge when holstering. If you have your shooting grip when holstering, it won't make a difference. If you insert the gun in the holster and then press on the back of the slide, without pressing on the grip safety, it SHOULD be safer.

In the end I hated the trigger, even with the Powder River Precision kit, and sold the gun. Can't say I miss it in the least. I am just very careful holstering my Glock 43.

[mr bolo]

a Springfield Armory XD really needs the grip safety because it's always fully cocked, thats why the trigger pull is so nice, it's natural to hold a pistol and depress the grip safety, so it could easily snag on something while holstering

a Glock is very simplistic, less parts, safe as long as you are well aware and trained with it, dont snag the trigger and keep your finger off until ready to fire

or carry ISRAELI IDF style and carry on empty chamber ,and train to rack the slide before use.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Glock threads are bad enough. Do not go off on the horror of Israeli carry!!!

[USNRet93]

No kidding...unless you will ALWAYS have a hand free....

[luger fan]

In 1898 Iver Johnson INVENTED the "SAFETY TRIGGER", the trigger children think Glock invented in the 1980's. Same kids think Glock was the first with a plastic frame, WRONG AGAIN. H&K has that decades earlier.

Glock is the PERFECT gun for those easily impressed.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by luger fan

Glock is the PERFECT gun for those easily impressed.

Geez, forehead soap..still looking for that, ‘why I hate (put name of gun here)...thread...geee, squeeze trigger, goes bang, makes hole in target..not sure what else it’s supposed to do. ‘Better hole’? ..those that rely on guns to score coffee shop points at the ‘table’ when waiting for a lane wear me out.

But I guess 65% of all Police departments and military organizations, those 5 million or so ‘could’ be wrong...

Here’s where you tell us why YOUR choice is ohh so much ‘better’ making those holes in paper targets.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by luger fan

In 1898 Iver Johnson INVENTED the "SAFETY TRIGGER", the trigger children think Glock invented in the 1980's. Same kids think Glock was the first with a plastic frame, WRONG AGAIN. H&K has that decades earlier.

Glock is the PERFECT gun for those easily impressed.

Where are these kids you speak of? Are we running a daycare now?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is that question for the moderators? Don't ask.

Sorry

[JDBerg]

This is post #269 on this thread and what have we learned here? If somebody wants to say they like their Walther or M&P better than a Glock then I’m certainly OK with that.

And it would be a quantum leap improvement if Glock would let Walther design their triggerguards. I wish I could get the thin triggerguard on my PPS-M2 to replace the fat & blocky triggerguard on a Glock. That would be the one change I’d make to any of my Glocks.

[USNRet93]

Ha, I LIKE the Glock trigger guard and it fits ohh so nicely in the Raven Vanguard I use...

I also really like the slide finish of my son's G17Gen5 and Glock 45..Beyoutiful!!

[Siggy-06]

I had 3 Glocks at one time, then I just had my 23 because I shot it the best, and had moved on to different pistols. Even though the 43X and 48 just launched, I purchased a 43 yesterday. I really liked the size and trigger, and may add a +1 mag extension eventually.

I wish Glocks came with metal sights from the factory. I also notice stock trigger pulls vary from gun to gun(not just weight wise, but feel/creep).

[44 AMP]

But I guess 65% of all Police departments and military organizations, those 5 million or so ‘could’ be wrong

Yep, they not only could be, but are wrong...for me.

Always remember that, with very rare and few exceptions, those police and military carrying the pistols don't get to choose what they are. What gets bought and issued is decided by various administrators, NOT the "line troops". Their primary considerations are usually "good enough to do the job" and "meets the desired price point". NOT "what is best in the hands of the troops".

Also remember that military organizations, and to a degree police, focus on what they consider best "for the mission", NOT on what might be best for the individual carrying out the mission. I'm no longer in the military, never was a cop, my life's "mission" is a lot different than theirs. Probably a bit different from yours. They get to decide what is best, for them (well somebody decides for them) I decide what is best, for me. Assuming that what the military and police use is best for everyone is on the same line of reasoning as "eat "poop"! Billions and billions of flies can't be wrong!"

[tipoc]

11 pages and the main reasoning against Glocks seems to be:

1. Glocks don't fit my hand. I don't shoot them well. Practice might change that but there are many other choices for me so why bother learning to shoot a gun I don't like, better?

2. It doesn't have an external safety and I prefer guns that have external safeties or are da/sa.

3. I'm still wary of polymer guns and prefer metal.

4. I don't have an issue with them just prefer other guns.

5. Polymer, striker, who cares? If they shoot I like em. I just think there are better polymer framed striker fired guns out there than a Glock. Or polymer hammer.

6. I don't have a problem with the gun I have an issue with the folks that constantly tell me they are the best gun out there and ideal for all purposes and that I'm an ignorant obsolete fella for not "getting with" a "modern gun". So I refuse to feed that monkey.

That seems about it as far as I can tell.

tipoc

[amd6547]

You forgot "the trigger is terrible, I can't hit anything".

[tipoc]

You forgot "the trigger is terrible, I can't hit anything".

That kinda fits under point 1.

tipoc