Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
Big Chief
Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
Time for an honest discussioin on Glock pistols
Big Chief
Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
Are they inherently unsafe? I know one member here a while back got slammed for suggesting such an idy, but AD/ND sure are almost commonplace with them above/beyond any other make I can think of.
Millions of citizens/police/military's carry and use them around the world. I think it was NYPD who had their Glock triggers set to a much heavier pull weight?
Obviously, if carried and used as instructed from training and the owners manual they can be just as "Safe" as any other make on the market.
Those who own Glocks on here don't seem to have or had any issues with them. I know carrying one does take some understanding of how they function and what not to do because they can and will go BANG when a round is chambered and the TRIGGER is PULLED as advertised.
I know some folks who carry their Glocks with an empty chamber because they feel they may fire it "Unintentionally" if they carry it ready to go. Sorta like they don't fully trust their Glocks, but if they admitted it and were honest, they don't trust their own abilities to handle one SAFELY 100% of the time is more like it.
They are ugly as homemade sin and about as pleasing to look at as a lug wrench to me, but are very good at doing what they were designed to do, go bang when you pull the trigger and are uncannily tough and reliable.
We used to hear a lot about 1911s not being the best choice for novices, especially if carried in Condition One/Cocked and Locked. Of course, you could leave one (or any gun) loaded for a hundreds of years and it wouldn't just go off without help from a human and his/her butt scratching fingers pulling the trigger or having something get inside the trigger guard and from some kinda force actuating the trigger.
The 1911 does have an external safety and when engaged it won't go bang when you don't want it to and it has a grip safety and a half-cock safety. That's certainly food fer thought.
I'm not knocking Glocks, but honestly think of all the firearms on the market it has to be the most misunderstood on how it mechanically functions.
So what say you?
Millions of citizens/police/military's carry and use them around the world. I think it was NYPD who had their Glock triggers set to a much heavier pull weight?
Obviously, if carried and used as instructed from training and the owners manual they can be just as "Safe" as any other make on the market.
Those who own Glocks on here don't seem to have or had any issues with them. I know carrying one does take some understanding of how they function and what not to do because they can and will go BANG when a round is chambered and the TRIGGER is PULLED as advertised.
I know some folks who carry their Glocks with an empty chamber because they feel they may fire it "Unintentionally" if they carry it ready to go. Sorta like they don't fully trust their Glocks, but if they admitted it and were honest, they don't trust their own abilities to handle one SAFELY 100% of the time is more like it.
They are ugly as homemade sin and about as pleasing to look at as a lug wrench to me, but are very good at doing what they were designed to do, go bang when you pull the trigger and are uncannily tough and reliable.
We used to hear a lot about 1911s not being the best choice for novices, especially if carried in Condition One/Cocked and Locked. Of course, you could leave one (or any gun) loaded for a hundreds of years and it wouldn't just go off without help from a human and his/her butt scratching fingers pulling the trigger or having something get inside the trigger guard and from some kinda force actuating the trigger.
The 1911 does have an external safety and when engaged it won't go bang when you don't want it to and it has a grip safety and a half-cock safety. That's certainly food fer thought.
I'm not knocking Glocks, but honestly think of all the firearms on the market it has to be the most misunderstood on how it mechanically functions.
So what say you?
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Replies
Shoot your Glock frequently and always train yourself to keep you trigger finger outside of the trigger guard when drawing, aiming, and holstering.
Repetition builds muscle memory. It takes the average human about 700 to 800 repetitive actions to embed muscle memory. But you can't stop there...it requires constant upkeep.
http://youtu.be/bTalnzcO0xk
IMO, the VAST majority of 'accidental' discharges are actually what Jason pointed them out to be... negligent. The shooter unintentionally discharges the firearm by having a finger on the trigger when they shouldn't, ('it just went off!') or by improper holstering ("I'm the only one qualified to handle *BANG*...owww!"). I have no scientific evidence to back this up, but I do know that the only 'accident' I ever had with a firearm (well, pellet gun in my case. I mistakenly thought the safety was truly safe...it wasn't and neither was I) was through gross mishandling. The few 'accidents' I've personally viewed have basically been different versions of the same gross mishandling. It was only through Divine intervention or pure stupid luck that nobody was hurt by the incidents I was personally involved with, which is why I am now extremely vigilant when it comes to the safe handling of firearms.
George Carlin
Reminds me of SCUBA diving. At one time (might still be) PADI-certified divers had the highest NUMBER of dive accidents world-wide. But the RATE (number of accidents per number of divers) was no greater or less than any other training organization. It's just simple math: if you have 30 times the divers as other agencies, you'll probably have 30 times the number of accidents.
As to the NYPD going to higher pull weight, that's due to sloppy training. The old-time officers who carried revolvers would start to pull the trigger when the pistol cleared leather, and would continue to do so during the draw stroke. That way they could get a shot off quicker (in theory.) With a lighter, shorter trigger it goes "bang" quicker. Rather than train then how to properly handle a handgun, top police brass decided to just make the trigger more like a revolver. Dumb idea in my opinion.
They're holster guns, not pocket guns, and need that holster to keep your shirt out of the trigger guard. I never felt good about carrying one in a soft, inside the waist holster, but that's me.
My SO has Glocks and I carried one for years. As a firearms instructor, I have never seen a ND or AD with a Glock. Well, there was one but the doofus deputy, who was a revolver-era guy, had his finger on the trigger. It's as hard to love a Glock as it is to love a hammer. Both are tools and are not for worshiping.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
This right here is the speculation I would like to see backed up. Where is the legit data to support such a claim? If you are going to lay out a claim...........back it up. With valid data.
Prove it..............so to speak.
Glock attempted to make a "safe" pistol by creating a simple gun on which the operator has only one control to manipulate - the trigger - and designing it in such a manner in which there is NO WAY that the gun can fire unless the trigger is pulled all the way to the rear. The beauty here is that you only have to train the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, lowest common denominator (the official term for them is "****", by the way) to keep the booger-picker and other stuff out of the trigger guard unless shooting and to not point the gun at stuff they don't want to shoot. Obviously, this can fail in the hands of a motivated ****.
Browning attempted to design a "safe" pistol by putting a lot of great safety features into the 1911, that do not hinder the ability of a true warrior to operate the gun and deliver accurate fire in the slightest. Unfortunately, true warriors tend to either read their instruction manuals or at least get quality instruction from someone who does. The **** tend to have a lot of N.D.'s with them because they don't understand how the gun works or the methods for carrying one safely. We don't see this much today because, for the most part, we have learned not to give 1911's to ****, but back in the day, it was a real problem.
The Nazis designed the DA/SA decocker specifically to provide a "safe" pistol for ****. Even this is not ****-proof. Usually, they can't hit a damn thing while trying to run two different trigger pulls under stress (inaccuracy and not negating the threat are both unsafe in my book). The heavy trigger pull encourages **** to run around with their fingers on the trigger (bad for the first round - REALLY bad for the second), and the safety/decocker is something that a **** has to remember to engage. More controls + a **** not interested in learning how to operate them = KABOOM!
Double Action Only? Yes, it's great if you successfully teach people to keep their fingers off the triggers, because even DAO is not an obstacle to a KABOOM if startled or stressed. You still need to be aware of the fact that rounds can still be in chambers even if magazines are removed, or that the cylinder on a revolver REVOLVES. Have you picked up on my general theme of **** yet?
There's a funny and insightful story - probably urban legend - that circulates around firearm instructor circles. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a former Spetsnaz (special forces) operator emigrated to the United States and became a firearm instructor. In one of his classes, he described the operation and deployment methods of the T-33 Tokarev handgun (basically a cheap 1911 clone with a lot of its more externally obvious safety features stripped off). One of the students thought about this for a moment and said "That sounds really dangerous". The Russian warrior, who grew up in a society without lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, incredulously yelled;
"IS GUN!! SUPPOSED TO BE DANGEROUS!!!"
Given the ubiquitous nature of **** and their ingenuity for defeating "safety" devices of all kinds, I think Gaston cooked up a pretty good system. It does not significantly handicap the warrior who knows what he's doing like a DA/SA can, and if it goes KABOOM negligently, the explanation is easily determined - 9,999 times out of a thousand, the operator was a ****.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
However, go to any training class or watch videos of them, and look at police departments across the nation. The breakdown of guns used will be something along the lines of........
20% Smith and Wesson M&P.
10% Other (Sig, H&K, CZ, Ruger, Walther, etc...).
70% Glock.
If NDs are even across the board, then obviously there are going to be more reported with Glocks than any other platform. As far as the user not fully understanding how they work.......well, they really don't have to, KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF OF THE FUDGING TRIGGER! It works the same with literally EVERY gun ever made, if you aren't safe with a Glock then you aren't safe with, once again, literally EVERY gun ever made!
I will fear no evil: For I carry a .308 and not a .270
You may be on to something. Seems like in the old days people who became LEOs were gun people. They loved firearms and used them on and off the job. They could talk about them knowledgeably and with enthusiasm. Nowadays a lot of LEOs seem to view their sidearm as just a tool. I don't know.
As far as the folks on this forum not having Glock discharge issues, I think it just proves we have a smarter class of people on this forum.
fify
Compared to a double action revolver, with a traditional 10 pound-ish double action trigger pull; and compared to a double action/single action automatic with an exposed hammer and de-cocking safety; and compared to a single action automatic with one or more manually operated, disabling safeties, the Glock design is relatively unsafe. Technically, the Glock "Safe Action" is neither SA or DA but a combination of both.
Would you carry a DA or SA revolver with the hammer cocked over a loaded chamber with nothing between the hammer and the firing pin? I wouldn't. I know - the single action trigger pull on a DA or SA revolver is usually much lighter than the Glock's, but the Glock factory standard of 5.5 pounds is still far too light for my peace of mind. If you're comfortable with that, good for you. Once a round is chambered in a Glock, the weapon cannot be secured, or even de-cocked except by firing. The gun cannot even be stripped for cleaning without pulling the trigger.
Whether unintended discharges are due to accident, negligence, the unforeseen actions of another, senior moments, or whatever, I don't care. The simple fact is they happen, and they happen to experienced shooters as well as novices. I've been lucky (or competent, or careful, or attentive, or whatever) so far and never experienced one. But it just makes sense to me that the more visually complex a mechanism is, the more attention it intrinsically demands from its operator. When I carry my 1911 in Condition One, the visual impact of the exposed, cocked hammer compels me to engage the thumb safety. Even so, being totally anal about safety, I chose a holster that has a retaining strap that passes between the hammer and the frame.
I will not condemn the Glock out of hand - for those who are perfect, never make mistakes, never forget or overlook anything, or are constantly attended by their guardian angel, a Glock is a good choice. For the rest of us, the combination of mechanical levers and visual cues serves to enhance safe gun handling, and peace of mind when carrying.
I really don't get what all the issue is.
I have several thousand rounds all together through them with never a problem.
"The Un-Tactical"
Are they inherently unsafe? I know one member here a while back got slammed for suggesting such an idy, but AD/ND sure are almost commonplace with them above/beyond any other make I can think of.
That's why I asked if they were "Unsafe" in comparison with other makes, I can't find any data listed anywhere on Glocks by themselves. It seems and from news articles and what has been posted on here and I've posted several about ADs/NDs over the years Glocks were involved in most of them.
If there was a data resource center with numbers, I sure would post a link to it.
You can Google Glocks and see lots of links, but I haven't found one with any numbers are graphs showing discharges and comparing that with other makes of pistols.
Plenty of news articles where a Glock was involved are out there. If someone on here has such data or knows where to get it please post a link. This forum is not the only gun forum where Glocks/safety have been discussed.
It's more than speculation on my part that Glocks are involved in a "Seemingly" larger amount of AD/NDs than other pistols, I just can't come up with empirical data to statistically prove it.
I wish some place like the National Safety Center/FBI/NRA or even anti-gun groups had some real numbers for us to evaluate/interpret and draw our own conclusions.
I've enjoyed all the input so far from members. I still say MOST of the ADs/NDs I read about involve a Glock pistol. The vast numbers used may be the reason as pointed out.
Would a grip safety (buyers option, not a law requirement) be a good idy on Glocks?????????
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I'm not sure if striker-fired pistols are an issue in and of themselves with how folks handle them in general or the Glock trigger system on them somehow causes "Darwin Moments" ?
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Isn't that special.
You could have stopped right there and solved all the problems.
You stated this in your original post........
"....but AD/ND sure are almost commonplace with them above/beyond any other make I can think of."
And when asked to back your statement...........you are unable to do so.
Kind of like the whole, "handloads lead to lawsuits and convictions in SD cases". Oh really?
If your going to be stupid or have a brain fart moment.............you can be stupid or have a brain fart with ANY gun!
This...............
.........can happen with any gun on the planet.
I don't like the recoil in some models. That cannot be changed.
I have one because I needed a backup 10mm, as I've stated before.
They are safe enough, same as any DA handgun without a manual operated safety or one with the safety pushed off.
But why are so many Glocks fired unintentionally? Do users need extra special training that ordinarily isn't required for other makes? Is it a design feature that make folks just forget they are handling a firearm that will fire when the trigger is pulled by their finger or any object that gets snagged up inside the trigger guard while they are holstering/drawing one?
Even in the Army we had ADs/NDs with both 1911s and M-9s so no firearm is any safer than it's user. I think it's because they are striker-fired and their trigger mechanism once actuated is easier to release the sear and allow them to fire. What else can it be?
Are they not the best choice in stressful situations? Are they somehow easier to make then go bang when being "handled" than other designs? Good gun safety practices like keeping your finger off the trigger and keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction go a long way in prevention.
With Glocks isn't it true a lot of SD/ND occurrences are reported when it wasn't a persons "FINGER" that caused them to fire, but another object like clothing/belt buckles/holsters whatever? If so like it seems, why?
I think we have to zero in on the trigger mechanism.
It's not the pistols fault and as someone in another forum pointed out no major lawsuit against Glock has ever been won (?) because they claimed them to be "Unsafe" and hurt themselves/others.
So we can conclude Glocks are different than other makes and seem to lend themselves to AD/ND more easily by users not following safety rules/precautions more stringently than they would with "ordinary" pistols from other makers?
I'll keep my eye on news reports of ADs/NDs and post the results. I don't have anything (numbers) to prove beyond a doubt they are more unsafe than any other pistol, but I can read and again Glocks seem to be involved in almost every incident I read about in the news.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Where are you finding this "fact"? How do you know they are? Can you prove this statement? Where are you getting this information? How do you know?
And every gun in the news is a Glock or an AK-47. Right?
:devil:
People don't like admitting they screwed the pooch. Nobody likes to admit they did something wrong. Easier to blame an inanimate object.
I have no data to back this statement. It is pure speculation. Much like this thread.
:tooth:
Probably because more careless people buy a Glock.
"Fact is they ARE involved in a larger amount of "Boo Boos" than any other pistol."
.................so we can actually have an honest and informed discussion.
:that: Well said.