Are Glocks unsafe ?
- Thread starter mattro
- Start date
- Status
The data comes from speaking with a leo. This particular leo is the Sheriffs son of the capitol county, he is now running for sherrif and is a real upstanding knowledgeable person.
He shared with me how multiple (at least 4 or 5) leo's have shot themselves with their glocks in the last couple of years. He thought that was a rather high number of accidents, and he thought the design of the gun 'contributed' (not caused) the accidents. He said there has been multiple ND's at the police training academy.
I'm not hear to support or bash the Glock. I'm not hear to say someone handled their gun smart or stupid. I am just curious to get input from alot of people that know ALOT more about Glocks than I do.
I think the G36 is about as cool as it gets. Alot of power in a very small reliable package!
I think the comments ragarding more Glock accidents due to more Glocks out there is very true.
But I don't subscribe to the 'guns dont need safeties cause people should be careful' crowd. I think it is smart to use the safest weapon possbile, as long as the safeties are unobtrusive. That is like saying a seat belt or air bag will never come in handy if you are a careful driver. not true.
I believe in using my safety on my 1911, and on my shotguns and rifles.
Having a few safeties to 'cushion' the human error, or inadvertant mistake (shirt tail stuck in holster), is smart.
I think easyg's comments paralleling to improvements in car safety are excellent and very pertinent.
He shared with me how multiple (at least 4 or 5) leo's have shot themselves with their glocks in the last couple of years. He thought that was a rather high number of accidents, and he thought the design of the gun 'contributed' (not caused) the accidents. He said there has been multiple ND's at the police training academy.
I'm not hear to support or bash the Glock. I'm not hear to say someone handled their gun smart or stupid. I am just curious to get input from alot of people that know ALOT more about Glocks than I do.
I think the G36 is about as cool as it gets. Alot of power in a very small reliable package!
I think the comments ragarding more Glock accidents due to more Glocks out there is very true.
But I don't subscribe to the 'guns dont need safeties cause people should be careful' crowd. I think it is smart to use the safest weapon possbile, as long as the safeties are unobtrusive. That is like saying a seat belt or air bag will never come in handy if you are a careful driver. not true.
I believe in using my safety on my 1911, and on my shotguns and rifles.
Having a few safeties to 'cushion' the human error, or inadvertant mistake (shirt tail stuck in holster), is smart.
I think easyg's comments paralleling to improvements in car safety are excellent and very pertinent.
Face it, Glocks aren't as 'foolproof' [with the emphasis on 'fool'] as some other guns. I remember when Glocks first came out there were a number of AD's due to the design of the box they came in. It had a projection that came up through the trigger guard to hold the gun firmly in place when in the box. Guess what happened when some 'fool' tried to put a loaded one back in the box.
Glocks are good guns. The only reason I don't and won't own one is because I never liked plastic framed guns to begin with. They don't feel right in my hand. But that doesn't change the fact that Glock makes very reliable semi automatic firearms, and they fit some people very well.
My stance on the safety thing is the same as MTMilitiaman's.
My stance on the safety thing is the same as MTMilitiaman's.
Whirlwind06
New member
Could it be that there a ton of Glocks being bought by a bunch of people that don't read the manual or bother to take a NRA basic pistol class?
JoeBlackSpade
New member
There are many stories about negligent discharges while handling Glocks.
In my opinion, Glocks are not "unsafe", however the lack of a decock-style safety means that someone who is careless is more likely to shoot himself or others, than if that person was handling, say, a Beretta 92FS, or even a Smith & Wesson Sigma.
In my opinion, Glocks are not "unsafe", however the lack of a decock-style safety means that someone who is careless is more likely to shoot himself or others, than if that person was handling, say, a Beretta 92FS, or even a Smith & Wesson Sigma.
MTMilitiaman
New member
I am sure we could find volunteers to help them dispose of their unsafe pistols.
I got first dibs on a 3rd Gen 29 and 30!
My mom is dead now because of those crumple zones and safety features. If she had been in my 76 F150, airbags wouldn't have knocked my dad unconscious when they hit a deer, and they wouldn't have had a head-on with a snow plow. So forgive me if I am a little but skeptical of the "safety is progress" speal.
I don't own a Glock, I've just shot them at the range. The trigger pull is fairly light and short, compared to a traditional DA auto. So if someone isn't following the basic safety rules, like way too many people, then there may be more AD's. Again if the rules are followed it shouldn't be an issue.
B
B
I'm feel sad for your lost, but If I have learned anything working in a hospital ER for over eight years it's this:
You can't save everyone.
No matter how safe we try to make our world, sometimes people die.
Some folks drown even while wearing a life-vest.
But that does not negate the fact that life-vests save thousands of folks around the world every year.
Just as airbags save thousands of folks every year.
It is, however, a truth that's hard to deny that Glocks absolutely lead the field in the number of NDs that occur.
Personally, I don't think the trigger safety is "safe". Too many ways something can get in the holster, or that it can bump on something. The number of NDs support that idea.
Also, you have to pull the trigger to take the gun down for disassembly, another thing that's led to Glock NDs.
At one time, people thought a lap belt only in a car was safe, too. Now we know better.
Personally, I don't think the trigger safety is "safe". Too many ways something can get in the holster, or that it can bump on something. The number of NDs support that idea.
Also, you have to pull the trigger to take the gun down for disassembly, another thing that's led to Glock NDs.
At one time, people thought a lap belt only in a car was safe, too. Now we know better.
Dry firing in a safe direction prevents accidents while cleaning. Putting a bore light in the chamber while pointing the gun at a mirror first is my habit. You can see back to the firing pin. BUT: I always dry fire into a large mound of dirt covered by wood beams (a huge tree-planter on my property). I'd do both with any semi-a.
Me to. I'm going through something similar, but, it's related to a brain tumor she had removed, and, a decay of brain functions. Living dead...:barf:
Now back to Glocks. What amazes me is that with the number of Glocks, there aren't MORE ND's, and, that Glock avoids lawsuits on the issue. When you think about it, most guns do have some sort of safety built in that does more then a Glocks, and, the industry standard is some sort of safety, like a grip safety, etc.
I have yet to buy a Glock, mainly because I can't get by having that heavy a trigger, though I'm learning. I'm also concerned, in that for CCW, I would like a gun with a loaded round in the chamber, and, that I just kick the safety off, or just pull the trigger. My 360PD resembles that, now that the lock is gone.
Now, what Glocks do offer is cheap parts, reliability, except for the G36, light weight, and, a magazine capacity that can't be beat. In other words, not having the safety may well be worth the extra 10 oz the XD weighs.
Is it worth having no safety, to speak of, in a gun that costs 500 dollars, carries 10 rounds, and weighs 20 oz, Glock 26/27, or that has more punch per oz then anything on the market, the 29 in 10 MM, and, the 30 converted to Super?
At self-defense ranges, I think it is. And, for some strange reason, people can shoot the guns quickly, and, apparently they can be VERY accurate.
Guns are trade offs, and, it seems everything in the gun world is a trade off.
Glocks, to me, would be perfect if they could add a safety either grip, or slide, prior to shooting. However, they do have a removeable safety: that block you put behind the trigger prior to holstering, and then knock out when you have to draw the weapon. So, while it's not an elegant solution, you do have a way to stop ND's on pulling, or putting the gun away. when you think about it, the trigger block can't weigh but a .5 oz, and, solves the Glocks only real problem.
S esq.
Socrates, if a nice trigger is high on your priority list, it is hard to beat a 1911. Growing up I did alot of competition shooting so I got used to nice triggers. When I decided to get serious about tactical and sd, I quickly decided a nice trigger was critical to me. So, I sold my XD and bought a nice 1911. I have been very happy.
My XD was flawless and great to shoot, but I wanted a pristine trigger.
The 1911 definetely has it's drawbacks, but I overall I love mine.
My XD was flawless and great to shoot, but I wanted a pristine trigger.
The 1911 definetely has it's drawbacks, but I overall I love mine.
MTMilitiaman
New member
You guys in the anti-Glock crowd have got to pick a side. We have the Glock being accused of having too heavy of a trigger to shoot properly and too light of a trigger to be safe in the same thread.
Either way, you can put two different weight of "New York" triggers in them if they are too light to suit your tastes, or a 3.5 pound disconnecter if you feel they are too heavy. It will probably never been a tuned 1911 trigger, but as a combat trigger, the Glock is very good, esp if you train yourself to only release the trigger to the reset for subsequent shots. The trigger pull from reset is very short and very crisp, at least on every Glock I've ever handled or shot.
Either way, you can put two different weight of "New York" triggers in them if they are too light to suit your tastes, or a 3.5 pound disconnecter if you feel they are too heavy. It will probably never been a tuned 1911 trigger, but as a combat trigger, the Glock is very good, esp if you train yourself to only release the trigger to the reset for subsequent shots. The trigger pull from reset is very short and very crisp, at least on every Glock I've ever handled or shot.
I'm a big Glock fan but, frankly, I'd like the Glock better if it had a (conventional) safety, I admit. Maybe I wouldn't use it most of the time but sometimes I might; I'd like to at least have that option. I do have two Saf-T-Bloks, and that is one way to eliminate the problem if keeping the gun properly holstered doesn't suffice.
Exactly. You mean like this, with about 90% Ed Brown parts, tuned by Jack Huntington for 45 Super?
mattro, I'm glad you brought that up, so I could go through it.
Here was my brief try at a snubby 45
The Kimber Ultra Carry II I got was a good one. Had Jack set it up to shoot 45 Super, stiff springs, and sold it to a forum member here for a song for what I had in it.
Here's my take on the 1911, and why I think Glocks are the way to go.
First, 45 ACP REALLY likes a 4, or 4.25" barrel, so, you are after either a Commander sized gun, or, better for CCW, a CCO. The CCO's are scarce, and expensive. If you get an alloy frame, it better run right off, because if you ramp the gun, it takes away the outside of the alloy, the hardest part, and, eventually, if you shoot the gun a lot, you end up
having to put an insert in the gun for the feedramp. Orion is doing this to the gun I sold him.
S&W has yet to make a Scandium CCO sized 1911, but, they have external extractors, not my favorite.
Now, the reason for selling the Ultra Carry is although it was 100% reliable, if you put it next to a commander, or full sized gun, you can see the difference in tolerances. There just isn't as much room for things to happen, and, the timing, and springs have to be changed more often, and, well, just think of it like a Ferrari. When they are tuned and tight, nothing like em. But, they are much more likely, due to the high tuning, to go out of tune then a Detroit car. Essence is, if you have a small block chevy or Ford producing 1 horsepower per cubic inch, it's tuned to tight tolerances, and, it is more likely to break down. If it's producing .5 horsepower for each cubic inch, it will run forever, all else equal. Same with the UC sized guns. Springs die faster, and, you just don't have as much room for error in feeding as the full-sized guns.
Also, the beavertail, which I don't need, keeps sticking me in the stomach, the way I carry it. And, you can't replace all the MIM parts with forged Ed Brown or Wilson stuff, because the Commander is about the smallest size that they make that stuff for.
Yes, it was a nice, powerful, light package, but, for the above reasons, not what I want to bet my life on.
So, I'm after a 4" barrel, 45 caliber, or at least 40,
good trigger, and, the gun has to be light. I could go with a
stainless Detonics Combat Master VI, but it also lacks a grip safety, and, it's heavy in thunderwear. Doesn't have a beavertail, which is good.
Now, the problem is, the gun you are looking for is fairly rare, CCO size, and the prices are pretty steep. I've almost picked up an alloy commander from Kimber, and, another stainless model, but, when push comes to shove, they aren't much different in size, for the way I carry, from my full sized gun.
Why bother?
It really needs to be a CCO, and, they don't grow on trees.
Now, the Glocks are blocky, and a bit thick, but, I have big hands, and, they are lighter, and smaller then the 1911's. Yes, the trigger sucks. But, the barrels on the 30/29 at 3.78 give you ballistics with jacketed bullets equal to a 4-4.25" in a CCO. they are cheap, and, if I ever have to use the gun, since my police chief hasn't issued a CCW in 30 years, it's going into an evidence locker for a long time.
Also, the 26 gives you near 357 type numbers with 9mm, i.e. with 125 grain bullets, consistent 1200 fps, and, that only weighs 20 oz.
At combat ranges, the trigger isn't as much of an issue.
The only reason I haven't bought a Glock is I have my little
357 360PD, and, with a bigger grip, it weighs 10 oz less then even the loaded 26, even though it's only 5 rounds, instead of 10. It gives similar ballistics to the 26, but with heavier bullets, in .357.
So, the bottomline is, the 1911 that would be what I'm after is expensive, relatively rare, and, if used, would be gone. Glocks, 29/30, carry more rounds, 10, max in Kali,
are built like brick houses, and, with a 30 dollar spring kit, will shoot 45 Super, and, a barrel change might also be a good idea, but not a necessity.
Another, slightly nagging alternative is a S&W airweight,
Maybe a 60, 24 oz, but the longer barrel would be great, and, I could use a speedloader(s) the same for both guns.
Or, get a used 38 Plus P for around 300-400, and have two guns, 5 rounds in each gun, still cheaper then buying a new Glock. Plus, with the longer grip, the scandium gun 360PD
is just a hair too long for pocket carry. The grip sticks out, and, you could be made.
With a 38 special, you can shoot it with those little boot grips that come on the gun, and still control it.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to move, so spending is on hold...
S esq.
- Status