Are Glocks unsafe ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
No. It is almost always the Glock that is thougt of a dangerous.
Click to expand...

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

+1

There's alot of "people are fallible", "everybody makes mistakes", "nobody's perfect","$%&* happens," talk. The fact remains, however, that bad gun handling is always 100% preventable. No... nobody can be fully attentive, aware and alert of all things 24/7, but you also don't need to handle firearms 24/7, either. A firearm is a deadly weapon, and if you're not able to give it your undivided attention and the respect that it deserves, you have no business handling it at that point in time.
 
Whew....

I'm glad this is over...we now can embrace the truth...Glocks are no more unsafe than any other handgun out their...it's the idiot know it all who makes a Glock (as well as every gun this Einstein puts his hand on) unsafe. I feel so much better now...like a good BM.
 
No, but a lot of people handling them are. Place a loaded Glock on a table and no one touch it and I would put money on it not firing. Let some jackleg start showing it to his buddies and braggin about it being safe you have a different story. As long as all the rules of gun safety are followed then I doubt you have a problem. Drive you car down the road, obey all traffic rules, keep it maintained and you probably won't have a problem. Let someone break some of those rules and you have a problem. How many vehicle wrecks are there per day. People don't follow the rules with cars or guns.
 
The advantage of a Glock is readiness to fire. The disadvantage of a Glock is readiness to fire. It reminds me of the quandry the military had with jet fighter ejection seats (this goes back to F-4 days). In the earlier types there was a face curtain that you had to pull over your head using two handles at the top of the seat. Nice and safe from accidental ejection, but maybe impossible to operate for an injured or disoriented pilot. Then they went to a single handle on the left side of the seat. Easier to operate, but a few pilots (and ground crew) took accidental rides. Even with a cover over the egress handle and eight safety pins, some people made a final Six Flags ride out of them on the ground. Some F-4 jocks used to put duct tape over their left thigh pockets because reaching there only meant one thing - time to leave the airplane. Kind of like trigger safety, huh? As a design criteria, if you have to choose, do you want to kill stupid, clumsy pilots who didn't mean to leave the airplane, or those injured in the line of duty who couldn't operate the "safe" design?
Click to expand...

..
 
Let me start with a question,
Of all of the new automobiles being sold today, are there any models that are safer than others?
If you answered yes then you also just said that you think there are some new cars being sold today are less-safe than others.
And you will get varying opinions as to what models are safer than which others.
But that doesn't mean that any of them are UNSAFE.
There is a huge difference between less-safe and unsafe.
The same applies with firearms. They can be more-safe or less-safe (and even both) without being unsafe.

So... Are Glocks unsafe? Hell no. But does anyone really believe they are the absolute safest design?
I am not a Glock basher. I am just a responsible firearms user expressing my observations and opinions.

Personally I really like the 1911 pattern pistol. I have owned and carried them both on duty and off for over 30 years. I have honestly lost track of exactly how many I have personally owned, much less how many I have shot, worked on or sold through the shops.
I, however, would NOT recommend a 1911 pattern pistol to a beginner. No way, no how. I just don't feel it should be a first gun for anyone.
Now if you read only the last three sentences you would say I was a 1911 basher. But I'm not. I can like someting and still be aware of its shortcomings.
And I am fully aware that many of you he-men out there reading this started out on a full size .45 auto.
And from your PMs I'm also aware that you have forgotten more than I will ever know. Yadda, yadda. Give it a rest.
I also believe John Moses Browning was a true genius. But not because he developed the 1911 (while working for Colt) but because of all of the other types and styles of firearms he developed during his career.

I also think the Glock is a fine pistol. I do not dislike it. The only reason I won't own one is the same reason I won't own a Colt New Service. Because they do not feel good in my hand. That's it pure and simple. No secret dinosaur conspiracy going on. It's just ergonomics.


I am an indoor range officer. I have been an indoor range officer, off and on since 1981. I have been exposed to just about every firearm known to man and then some. So when I see a novice having a problem or anyone acting unsafe I want that gun out of their hand ASAP! For the safety of everyone around. So I have to enter the range and order the shooter to make the gun safe and lay it down. But what if it doesn't have a manual safety? Well I just have to hope they will step away before they do anything else stupid.
With a Glock or a S&W M&P or a later model Steyr I get that same little feeling in my stomach that I get when some maroon lays down a fully cocked revolver. (Yes they do)

When you don't have to concern yourself with a safety you have to concern yourself more about safety.

My point is simply this. It is my belief, after dealing with thousands of shooters over the years, that a self loading firearm without a manual safety is an expert's gun. It is NOT a beginner's gun.



Second point.

With a 1911 pattern pistol, with a Luger, with a Colt Pocket Nine, with the Walther PP series, with the Sig P series and many, many other pistols, you can field strip the pistol into more than one part and suddenly look down and notice a live cartridge that YOU left in the chamber. That's when you give thanks that your lapse of sanity didn't get anyone hurt.

The good news is that all Glock owners, most M&P pistol owners, Kahr pocket pistol owners, as well as a few others, will never have to worry about that ever happening to them.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, people are to blame for their own actions. Luckily most engineers are smart enough to understand people aren't perfect. There is a great deal of effort put into designing products that account for the fact that all humans are fully capable of error.

I agree that you are responsible for any ND you may have, especially any that might kill me! I would certainly prefer it though if you had a weapon that accounted in some part for the error I know every person is capable of.
 
"I still don't understand why people blame the gun when it is completely human error."

Right, including the error of holstering a Glock in the wrong kind of holster. Yet, nowhere in the manual does it mention this. Put a Glock in a soft holster that doesn't entirely cover the trigger guard while holding the pistol securely and you have an accident waiting to happen. Of course, that is the user's fault for using such a holster, right?

The Glock can be outright dangerous when in the wrong-kind of holster, such as the kinds you can get at gunshows. Yet, the manual mentions nothing of this (just got finished reading it). The Glock, as a design, can be very unforgiving of deviation from the appropriate path. Slide a CZ-75 into a cheap soft-side holster and there is no danger what-so-ever. Slide a Glock into one and you could have an AD (yes, a true AD, if you bump into something).

Again, they are excellent pistols, but there are design elements that are not necessarily optimal. Pointing them out need not make one a Glock hater.

Davis
 
My point is simply this. It is my belief, after dealing with thousands of shooters over the years, that a self loading firearm without a manual safety is an expert's gun. It is NOT a beginner's gun.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top