Are Glocks unsafe ?
- Thread starter mattro
- Start date
- Status
To which part of the sentence is your question directed?
If you concede that a glock cannot be used in an ordinary holster, ...
It is the opinion of many that carrying a glock in an uncle mike's cordura holster is unsafe. Those who take that position are addressed by this clause.
...[then] it seems you should also concede not that a glock is unsafe in itself, ...
It doesn't follow that a glock design is inherently unsafe in any absolute sense.
...but that it present dangers that some other designs, the ones that can safely be used in ordinary holsters, don't present.
The many other guns that can be carried safely in those holsters are different in some way you've recognised. The difference pertains to a danger the glock design presents, according to your own admonition re holsters.
Apologies if my style was cryptic.
If you concede that a glock cannot be used in an ordinary holster, ...
It is the opinion of many that carrying a glock in an uncle mike's cordura holster is unsafe. Those who take that position are addressed by this clause.
...[then] it seems you should also concede not that a glock is unsafe in itself, ...
It doesn't follow that a glock design is inherently unsafe in any absolute sense.
...but that it present dangers that some other designs, the ones that can safely be used in ordinary holsters, don't present.
The many other guns that can be carried safely in those holsters are different in some way you've recognised. The difference pertains to a danger the glock design presents, according to your own admonition re holsters.
Apologies if my style was cryptic.
External safeties do not make a gun less prone to operator negligence. The problem is complacency--thinking that because your gun has an external safety, you can be less diligent in your gun handling.
I wonder how many have had ND's because they *thought* the safety was on and didn't follow the "finger off trigger" rule every time, all the time.
K
I wonder how many have had ND's because they *thought* the safety was on and didn't follow the "finger off trigger" rule every time, all the time.
K
Clearly the manual is not oriented toward training a person past a basic level--that would be painfully obvious to anyone reading the manual.
If you want to know what that level is, it's also clear. Glock says not to carry the pistol loaded. So if you're carrying the pistol loaded it doesn't make sense to say that the manual doesn't tell you how. In effect, it tells you that if the manual is your only resource you shouldn't carry the gun loaded.
But you want to carry the gun loaded? Ok--the manual acknowledges that some will want to do that.
"To provide safety while operating at a higher level of preparedness, proper initial combat oriented training and a reasonable amount of periodic training, which stresses safe tactical procedures is recommended."
In other words it is your responsibility to learn what (if any) additional training and safety procedures are required to go beyond what the manual tells you.
No manual covers every eventuality and most contain overly cautious prohibitions. It's not realistic to claim that the manufacturer is at fault for failing to cover every eventuality in the manual--and it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the manufacturer is at fault for what happens when a person fails to follow the instructions in the manual.
Would, no doubt, read the paragraph I quoted from since it's the first paragraph on the first page of the manual and is printed in red.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that there are responsible gun owners out there who don't understand that a holster that can manipulate the trigger of a firearm is dangerous.
But I'll go along with you.
Given: A person who cannot grasp the idea that a holster that can operate the trigger of a gun presents a danger.
Acknowledged: Owning a Glock would be dangerous for that person and those around him.
Further submitted: Such a person should not own any firearms if he does not understand that inadvertently operating the trigger can be extremely hazardous.
There is no gun that is optimally suited to every handgun owner. As I said yesterday, the beauty of it is that if you don't like a feature you can look around. Odds are there's a handgun that's a better match to you.
I am NOT saying that everyone should own a Glock. I'm not saying that they're suited to everyone. There is no gun that I would say either of those things about except in jest.
The thing that gets me about these threads is that instead of people saying: "I don't like Glocks, they have features I don't like and don't have features I want."
They say: "Glocks are inherently unsafe--only skilled and experienced people can own them without fear of death."
Personal preference does NOT have to be defended as if it's gospel truth. It's OK to have a preference just because that's the way you feel. There's no need to try to prove that anyone with different preferences and opinions is risking death or is dangerously ignorant.
RevolverLover
New member
I strongly agree with JohnKSa on this.
Fine, no problem. But, you must have missed what I said positively about Glocks, about their being rugged and reliable, etc. I have no animosity towards them, merely pointing out a single feature that I do not think lends Glocks as being ideal for new shooters. Certainly folks were far more condescending towards a preference of manual safeties. I certainly have not been the one jumping all over folks about this, my posts being reasonable.
Indeed, I said "Exaggerations? Perhaps. I imagine the scenario does not play itself out often, but it exists. And there are stories of AD/ND's from Glocks in incorrect holsters (and by that I do not mean shoving a Glock into a form-fitted 1911 or Berretta Holster).
Of course, I have no problems with folks liking the Glock and readily admit it is reliable and durable. I do not think it is a danger to society and certainly believe it is safer than a Jennings or Lorcin and safe to use with an educated, well-informed user. Yet it does have issues that Glock users tend to gloss over or blame on anything but a design issue."
"Don't forget....common sense is that always changing variable...to some it saves lives....to others...well...they just don't have it...or get it. It's not science...it's that feeling in your gut that tells you something is just not right...comprende amigo?"
Alnamvet, any particular reason you are being so hostile? Have I attacked you?
Davis
Indeed, I said "Exaggerations? Perhaps. I imagine the scenario does not play itself out often, but it exists. And there are stories of AD/ND's from Glocks in incorrect holsters (and by that I do not mean shoving a Glock into a form-fitted 1911 or Berretta Holster).
Of course, I have no problems with folks liking the Glock and readily admit it is reliable and durable. I do not think it is a danger to society and certainly believe it is safer than a Jennings or Lorcin and safe to use with an educated, well-informed user. Yet it does have issues that Glock users tend to gloss over or blame on anything but a design issue."
"Don't forget....common sense is that always changing variable...to some it saves lives....to others...well...they just don't have it...or get it. It's not science...it's that feeling in your gut that tells you something is just not right...comprende amigo?"
Alnamvet, any particular reason you are being so hostile? Have I attacked you?
Davis
Oh my! Where to start? I'll just take them in order they appeared...
Davis... The second holster you mentioned;
Well it DOES cover the trigger guard. I have one of thise right here, now, in my hand.
The first one however does not and should not be used for Glocks.
Other than that I actually agree with you. Glock SHOULD mention never to use a holster that doesn't cover the triggerguard.
Nor do I consider the "Patton" satyle holsters to be unsafe.
That design has only been made for about 100 years now.
The Yaqui slide is still one of the most popular holster designs. They are available from many big name, reputable manufacturers.
So there are plenty of holsters that do not cover the trigger that are totally, and I mean completely, safe to use.
But not with a Glock.
There are THREE things that happened that prompted the shift to holsters with covered trigger areas.
With revolvers the safety strap goes over the hammer so even IF you werre walking through the brush and a twig touched your trigger the hammer is held in place by the strap.
On 1911 style holsters the strap goes under the hammer. Thus with the strap uner the hammer and the safety on (plus the grip safety) you can pull the trigger to your hearts content and it ain't goinna fire.
So far one thing that we have all failed to point out is that most other guns have dedundency built into their safety systems. Whereas Gaston put all of his eggs into one basket.
Another thing to ask yourself, and considering the empohasis placed on gun retention these days it's something to consider deeply. IF you are carrying your gun with all possible safeties activated, and someone grabs your weapon, what do they have to do you shoot you?
Do they just pull the trigger? Or do they have to fumble with a possibly unfamiliar safety?
Have you ever heard of anyone NOT being shot with their own Glock* simply because the BG couldn't find the safety?
Let me restate that I believe Glocks are fine weapons.
But you need a higher level of skill to PROPERLY carry and use a Glock style weapon.
Because it takes absolutely zreo skill to operate one.
*or revolver or XD or any gun with no manual safety
Davis... The second holster you mentioned;
Well it DOES cover the trigger guard. I have one of thise right here, now, in my hand.
The first one however does not and should not be used for Glocks.
Other than that I actually agree with you. Glock SHOULD mention never to use a holster that doesn't cover the triggerguard.
Except that unless you CANNOT have a Glock in Condition One. Cooper's conditions pertain ONLY to guns that can be carried cocked with a manual safety applied. Even if you have a Cominolli safety there is no provision for half-cocked carry.Officer's Match said:
Well Neinstein, if you look at most revolver holsters of the 19th and 20th centuries you'll see they did not cover the triggerguard. That included Police Duty Holsters. Inb fact there are STILL to this day many Revolver holsters that do not cover the triggerguard. AND the Tom Threepersons style holster that is having yet another resurgence in popularity has an opening in the trigger area even on automatic holsters.alnamvet said:
Nor do I consider the "Patton" satyle holsters to be unsafe.
That design has only been made for about 100 years now.
The Yaqui slide is still one of the most popular holster designs. They are available from many big name, reputable manufacturers.
So there are plenty of holsters that do not cover the trigger that are totally, and I mean completely, safe to use.
But not with a Glock.
There are THREE things that happened that prompted the shift to holsters with covered trigger areas.
- The finger pointing downrange method of teaching
- The increased attention toward "retention" holsters for police officers
- Glocks and similar designs that offer no safety except the trigger.
With revolvers the safety strap goes over the hammer so even IF you werre walking through the brush and a twig touched your trigger the hammer is held in place by the strap.
On 1911 style holsters the strap goes under the hammer. Thus with the strap uner the hammer and the safety on (plus the grip safety) you can pull the trigger to your hearts content and it ain't goinna fire.
So far one thing that we have all failed to point out is that most other guns have dedundency built into their safety systems. Whereas Gaston put all of his eggs into one basket.
Another thing to ask yourself, and considering the empohasis placed on gun retention these days it's something to consider deeply. IF you are carrying your gun with all possible safeties activated, and someone grabs your weapon, what do they have to do you shoot you?
Do they just pull the trigger? Or do they have to fumble with a possibly unfamiliar safety?
Have you ever heard of anyone NOT being shot with their own Glock* simply because the BG couldn't find the safety?
Clint Smith said:
Let me restate that I believe Glocks are fine weapons.
But you need a higher level of skill to PROPERLY carry and use a Glock style weapon.
Because it takes absolutely zreo skill to operate one.
*or revolver or XD or any gun with no manual safety
Alnamvet, Let me guess which gun shop you work in.
The selling price of the Glock IS a HUGE selling point to a novice.
It's priced well under most of the other quality pistols out there.
And to a novice a holster is a holster. They are too stupid to understand the difference. After all, the cop on his beat is wearing black fabric looking holster. And there are cops on the front of the Uncle Mikes Catalogue.
And a novice doesn't understand why a 20 round box of Golden Magic costs three times as much as a 50 round box of Wolf. Once again thet are too stupid to understand external ballistics. Which is sorta like rocket science.
This is why I am so glad there are so many Rocket Surgeons like you around to tell them how stupid they are.
And chump change is a oxymoron.
You can change a dollar, but you can't change a chump.
The selling price of the Glock IS a HUGE selling point to a novice.
It's priced well under most of the other quality pistols out there.
And to a novice a holster is a holster. They are too stupid to understand the difference. After all, the cop on his beat is wearing black fabric looking holster. And there are cops on the front of the Uncle Mikes Catalogue.
And a novice doesn't understand why a 20 round box of Golden Magic costs three times as much as a 50 round box of Wolf. Once again thet are too stupid to understand external ballistics. Which is sorta like rocket science.
This is why I am so glad there are so many Rocket Surgeons like you around to tell them how stupid they are.
And chump change is a oxymoron.
You can change a dollar, but you can't change a chump.
SpectreBlofeld
New member
Bluesbear -
Another important point to notice is that similar holsters, that had thin retention straps like the ones above, were responsible for ADs among users because the strap would get caught inside the trigger guard while holstering.
MTMilitiaman
New member
Bingo!
Davis:
Please, do explain why it is unsafe to carry a Glock in a soft-sided holster. Do tell. I am dying to know, if for no other reason than it should be quite entertaining.
As long as the trigger guard is covered, and the trigger and controls are not actuated by the holster, it can be considered safe for the Glock. These are not very stringent criteria either. In fact, it is true of every firearm, with the only difference being that the Glock should be carried with the trigger guard covered. If the holster is pushing the mag release, pulling the trigger, dis-engaging the safety, ect., then it is not safe for use with that firearm. It isn't strictly a Glock thing, and indeed, Glock really isn't much more susceptible to it than any other design. It's simple really--just make sure the damn trigger guard is covered. As long as you can manage this monumental accomplishment, your pistol is safe. It isn't going to bite you.
I've carried my Glock 20, always with one in the pipe, for years in an Uncle Mikes just like the one in your second link. I've stumble and fell, rolled down mountain sides, crawled through brush, ran, jumped, and climbed over countless obstacles, drew and re-holstered the pistol thousands of times, and even went so far as to try and make the pistol fire while holstered or during the act of re-holstering, to no avail.
You must realize that the Glock is not just a ticking time bomb. It isn't a freaking mine, as someone so blatantly put it. It's passed the same drop tests and meets the same safety requirements as any other auto sold in this country. This goes for firing out of battery, as well, since some refuse to drop that. I have next to me at this moment an HK USP, a Glock, and a 1911. All three of them can be made to fire with their slides slightly out of battery. It is again not a problem limited only to the Glock, despite what some would have you to think.
Do you personally know of a single case of that happening?
I don't.
And I was working when that type of holster was still in use by well over 50% of uniformed officers in my area. I never even heard of it happening. I've even tried to make it happen and couldn't.
And even though I've never been able to do it I believe that the short, wide straps of a thumb break holster would be much more likely to get caught in a revolver's trigger guard than the long skinny straps from a Jordan holster.
A covered trigger on a holster only protects it AFTER it's been reholstered and before the strap is secured. So in reality a completely exposed triggerguard is safer if your primary concern is something getting caught between the holster body and the trigger.
IF a strap is going to become entangled in the triggerguard it doesn't matter if the holster covers the guard or not. It will become entangled as the gun is going into the holster because that is when the guard is always exposed.
Anytime you are reholstering and you feel any resistance you need to investigate why. You'd need a lot of resistance to fire a revolver while reholstering and you should have the safety engaged on your automatic before reholstering so even if something DID manage to get in the guard nothing would happen.
I felt this deserved it's own space.
The only locker room shooting that I have personal knowledge of was a Jefferson County (Kentucky) Police Officer who was placing his newly acquired Walther PPKs inside a holster for storage.
Remember that this was the early 1980s and the Kentucky State Police had only recently approved the Walther PPKs for backup and off duty use.
His uniform holster was a Safariland model 29 (hi-ride thumb break) which left the entire triggerguard of his nickle plated 4" S&W Model 19 exposed. Many officers at that time used that same style holster.
The new holster for his Walther had an enclosed triggerguard. He unwisely had his finger on the trigger of the Walther as he shoved it into the holster.
So as he shoved his new pistol into the holster it discharged. The leather over the closed triggerguard mashed his trigger finger against the trigger.
Since the gun was still at a slight angle entering the holster the bullet exited out the back of the holster about two inches from the bottom.
When the bullet exited the holster it entered his left hand in the fleshly portion between the thumb and forefinger.
It struck the forfinger metacarpal crossed the metacarpophalangeal, was deflected by the proximal interphalangeal and exited the side of the forfinger half way between the joints.
The bullet then penetrated a metal locker door.
Several surgeries resulted as well as months (years?) of physical therapy.
He regained almost full use of the finger but he'll have a nasy scar for the rest of his life.
There were have several Gremlins at work here.
Complacency is the real enemy here.
He forgot the most important rule.
Keep your cotton-pickin' boogerhook off the gal-dang bangswitch.
That one little thing scarred him for life. Long after the teasing and ribbing has stopped. All he has to do is look at his hand to be reminded that a split second lapse of concentration had a life time effect.
The only locker room shooting that I have personal knowledge of was a Jefferson County (Kentucky) Police Officer who was placing his newly acquired Walther PPKs inside a holster for storage.
Remember that this was the early 1980s and the Kentucky State Police had only recently approved the Walther PPKs for backup and off duty use.
His uniform holster was a Safariland model 29 (hi-ride thumb break) which left the entire triggerguard of his nickle plated 4" S&W Model 19 exposed. Many officers at that time used that same style holster.
The new holster for his Walther had an enclosed triggerguard. He unwisely had his finger on the trigger of the Walther as he shoved it into the holster.
So as he shoved his new pistol into the holster it discharged. The leather over the closed triggerguard mashed his trigger finger against the trigger.
Since the gun was still at a slight angle entering the holster the bullet exited out the back of the holster about two inches from the bottom.
When the bullet exited the holster it entered his left hand in the fleshly portion between the thumb and forefinger.
It struck the forfinger metacarpal crossed the metacarpophalangeal, was deflected by the proximal interphalangeal and exited the side of the forfinger half way between the joints.
The bullet then penetrated a metal locker door.
Several surgeries resulted as well as months (years?) of physical therapy.
He regained almost full use of the finger but he'll have a nasy scar for the rest of his life.
There were have several Gremlins at work here.
- The holster was brand new and as such it was very tight. Making it difficult to insert the gun without a good hard shove. If he had slowly inserted the gun I am sure he would have felt the holster touch his finger.
- The safety was off. If the safety had been on then nothing would have happened.
- The holster covered the triggerguard. If the trigger area had been exposed there would have been no leather pushing his finger against the trigger.
- His left hand was cupping the bottom portion of the holster. If only his hand hadn't been in the way then only the locker would have suffered.
- His finger was on the trigger. If it hadn't then there would be nothing to discuss here.
- He wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. He wore a gun every day. He was familiar with guns.
Complacency is the real enemy here.
He forgot the most important rule.
Keep your cotton-pickin' boogerhook off the gal-dang bangswitch.
That one little thing scarred him for life. Long after the teasing and ribbing has stopped. All he has to do is look at his hand to be reminded that a split second lapse of concentration had a life time effect.
I've got to learn to type faster.
The barrel is locked into the slide well before the disconnecter will let the sear drop the hammer.
Perhaps you need some work done on yours.
Well I'VE got three Series 80 Colts right here. (Government, Commander, Combat Commander) and NONE of them will fire out of battery.MTMilitiaman said:
The barrel is locked into the slide well before the disconnecter will let the sear drop the hammer.
Perhaps you need some work done on yours.
MTMilitiaman
New member
You mean in the same manner the barrel and slide lock up on my Glock well before the rearward motion of the trigger bar releases the striker assembly? Weird
You'd think one used the same operating principles as the other
Furthermore, the firing pin safety exists for the sole purpose of blocking the firing pin from traveling forward until the trigger is pulled to the rear and the raised portion of the trigger bar disengages it.
Perhaps these people witnessing these Glocks firing out of battery should just have some work done on their pistols. Perhaps theirs are broken or defective, because the Glock was shown to be unable to fire out of battery for the Austrian military and before import into this country.
So why is it that when a Glock fires out of battery it is a defect of design whereas when a 1911 fires out of battery, it just needs some work done?
And yes, the slide is locked with the lugs on the barrel in the 1911 I used as well, even though the slide can be held about 1/16 of an inch to the rear and the hammer will still drop when the trigger is pulled. In the same manner, the Glock and the HK USP can both have their slides held a fraction of an inch to the rear and the hammer/striker will drop, but the barrel is already locked in with the slide.
- Status