Are Glocks unsafe ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Glock Safety!!!

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Agreed!
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Except that it's not an either or situation. Adding all those things doesn't prevent NDs.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top