Are Glocks unsafe ?
- Thread starter mattro
- Start date
- Status
Kreyzhorse
New member
I think the above quote sums a Glock up nicely. The Glock unto itself is not an unsafe fire any more so than any other firearm. A Glock does demand that you practice safe handling at all times and you need to be totally aware of the weapon.
I've owned a Glock for years and it is, on occasion, my CCW piece. I've never had a ND, but I try to be fully aware of the weapon and its character. For me, that includes a good Galco Fletch holster and when clearing the chamber, a visual and a tactile search.
Not that you don't have to be fully aware when using any firearm, but I do feel that my Glock requires me step up when carrying it verse my Smith and Wesson 637 Airweight.
a Brief Hustory of Major Glock Problems
A Brief History od Glock Problems
At a match recently I said that I don't trust Glocks. My reason is simple. They have too many mysterious problems. I was immediately called a "Glock Basher" and asked to name these socalled problems.
Here is a brief summary condensed from The Gun Zone,
"Glock's Gravest Problem
A potentially ruinous event strikes the popular police pistol
First it was the April 1992 Product Upgrade, public disclosure of which was spurred by the AD Heard 'Round The World, but which had its origins in Glock's 1991 failure in the DEA "frisbee test."
Then it was the contentious issue of the Glock kB!s which the Smyrna, Georgia importer of the immensely popular Austrian-manufactured handgun has yet, more than 11 years after the catastrophic failures started happening on a regular basis, to properly address.
Next up were the defective guide rods of the Models 26 and 27 built between mid-September and late-October, 1999.
Then came the mysterious "Phase 3 Malfunctions" for which Glock, Inc. staunchly denied responsibility for almost six years before sucking it up and sending a mini-machine shop to City Island, NY to retro-machine over 26,000 of NYPD's Models 19.
Now things look grim indeed for the company which, in just 16 years, has not only captured a lion's share of the United States law enforcement market, but revolutionized the handgun industry.
First word reached public notice the week of 7 October 2002 with the story out of the Bernalillo County (New Mexico) that the Sheriff's Department had discovered a problem in some newer .40-caliber Glock pistols that could lead to breakages after prolonged use.
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has discovered a problem with its new Glock .40-caliber semi-automatic handguns.
Deputy Robert Ray, the armorer who runs the department's shooting range, he says the department scrambled to inspect all of its Glocks on Monday after two weapons broke.
The inspection turned up two more broken guns. Ray says that on some newer versions of the gun, two pieces of steel in the lower portion of the weapon were improperly machined. Those pieces may be prone to breaking under the stress of repeated firing. (see sidebar for complete text)
The days after this news broke, a tip from a source in the 703 area code reached TGZ that "Glock has a big problem:"
Glock has recently discovered a serious structual problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in the last couple of years©ˆ. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, is now causing some rear rails to break off the guns©˜. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.
Glock recently went to the FBI and told them about this problem and quietly replaced over 700 frames. They apparently have no intention to tell their other customers about this problem. This problem affects ALL models of Glocks and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS. What about the DC Police with 4000 guns, NYPD with 35000 guns.
They have a major recall situation on their hands, but like their infamous "upgrade," this will never be called a recall. This needs to be investigated and publicized to make Glock take care of their other customers and not give preference to the big FBI.
And investigated it is, first with the FBI's Firearms Training Unit in Quantico, Virginia, and then with Glock, Inc. which has been telling its 9mm-issuing agencies that it was only the .40 S&W pistols, due to the higher pressure, which are at risk. Although the same defect is present on all the polymer pistols, the company doesn't think the 9 x 19mm cartridge "is powerful enough" to break the rail.
Glock Inc.'s initial solution, curiously published on the Glock Shooting Sports Foundation site as opposed to the official Glock site, offered the following:
We have made the decision that in the interest of customer service, replacement frames will be offered to anyone who has a firearm in this range ("a very small percentage of GLOCK pistols produced between September of 2001 and May of 2002") and decides to take advantage of this offer. The replacement frames will have identical serial numbers to our customer's original firearm except the numeral 1 will be added as a prefix.
A Brief History od Glock Problems
At a match recently I said that I don't trust Glocks. My reason is simple. They have too many mysterious problems. I was immediately called a "Glock Basher" and asked to name these socalled problems.
Here is a brief summary condensed from The Gun Zone,
"Glock's Gravest Problem
A potentially ruinous event strikes the popular police pistol
First it was the April 1992 Product Upgrade, public disclosure of which was spurred by the AD Heard 'Round The World, but which had its origins in Glock's 1991 failure in the DEA "frisbee test."
Then it was the contentious issue of the Glock kB!s which the Smyrna, Georgia importer of the immensely popular Austrian-manufactured handgun has yet, more than 11 years after the catastrophic failures started happening on a regular basis, to properly address.
Next up were the defective guide rods of the Models 26 and 27 built between mid-September and late-October, 1999.
Then came the mysterious "Phase 3 Malfunctions" for which Glock, Inc. staunchly denied responsibility for almost six years before sucking it up and sending a mini-machine shop to City Island, NY to retro-machine over 26,000 of NYPD's Models 19.
Now things look grim indeed for the company which, in just 16 years, has not only captured a lion's share of the United States law enforcement market, but revolutionized the handgun industry.
First word reached public notice the week of 7 October 2002 with the story out of the Bernalillo County (New Mexico) that the Sheriff's Department had discovered a problem in some newer .40-caliber Glock pistols that could lead to breakages after prolonged use.
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has discovered a problem with its new Glock .40-caliber semi-automatic handguns.
Deputy Robert Ray, the armorer who runs the department's shooting range, he says the department scrambled to inspect all of its Glocks on Monday after two weapons broke.
The inspection turned up two more broken guns. Ray says that on some newer versions of the gun, two pieces of steel in the lower portion of the weapon were improperly machined. Those pieces may be prone to breaking under the stress of repeated firing. (see sidebar for complete text)
The days after this news broke, a tip from a source in the 703 area code reached TGZ that "Glock has a big problem:"
Glock has recently discovered a serious structual problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in the last couple of years©ˆ. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, is now causing some rear rails to break off the guns©˜. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.
Glock recently went to the FBI and told them about this problem and quietly replaced over 700 frames. They apparently have no intention to tell their other customers about this problem. This problem affects ALL models of Glocks and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS. What about the DC Police with 4000 guns, NYPD with 35000 guns.
They have a major recall situation on their hands, but like their infamous "upgrade," this will never be called a recall. This needs to be investigated and publicized to make Glock take care of their other customers and not give preference to the big FBI.
And investigated it is, first with the FBI's Firearms Training Unit in Quantico, Virginia, and then with Glock, Inc. which has been telling its 9mm-issuing agencies that it was only the .40 S&W pistols, due to the higher pressure, which are at risk. Although the same defect is present on all the polymer pistols, the company doesn't think the 9 x 19mm cartridge "is powerful enough" to break the rail.
Glock Inc.'s initial solution, curiously published on the Glock Shooting Sports Foundation site as opposed to the official Glock site, offered the following:
We have made the decision that in the interest of customer service, replacement frames will be offered to anyone who has a firearm in this range ("a very small percentage of GLOCK pistols produced between September of 2001 and May of 2002") and decides to take advantage of this offer. The replacement frames will have identical serial numbers to our customer's original firearm except the numeral 1 will be added as a prefix.
Night Watch
New member
In all fairness to Glock this problem HAS BEEN ADDRESSED as I mentioned above. I don't think we'll see it again on any 40 caliber pistol manufactured AFTER late Spring of 2007. While I don’t blindly accept everything the Glock factory has to say, (Lord knows, I’ve been lied to more than once by Glock tech support.) I honestly do believe Glock on this one. I think it WAS a problem with some, ‘Glock Forties' and not with others. If I carried a 9mm I truly wouldn’t worry about it; I do carry a Glock 45 acp; and, I’m not worried, at all.
But, yes, Glock had this problem; and, as usual, they were less than perfectly straightforward about it with the general public.
I have never heard of a rail breaking and locking up the gun. The only rail breakage incident I recall seeing posted resulted in a POI shift but the gun kept working. Glock indicated that a rail breaking shouldn't tie up the gun--they appear to be right based on the only report I've heard.
I have heard of only a very few rails breaking at all. The one posted here at TFL was the result of a person intentionally shooting the gun after finding out that it fell into the serial number range of the affected guns. He ran around 7000 rounds through it before the rail broke and when it did, he sent in the gun and got a free replacement frame from Glock.
I tried to track down the total number of broken rails and ended up with something like 10, IIRC. Glock stated that the the rails had a higher CHANCE of failing than they were willing to accept and therefore said that they would offer free replacement frames to anyone with a Glock in the affected serial number range regardless of whether or not the gun had failed. In other words, they were not replacing guns that WOULD fail, they were going a step farther and replacing guns that had an unacceptably high CHANCE of failing. Said another way, a lot of the guns they replaced were not EVER going to fail in the manner specified but Glock replaced them anyway.
Does anyone else see the contradiction here?
MTMilitiaman
New member
For those that are still interested. I am not sure how much good the pics are going to do as it really must be seen first hand to understand. When you hold the barrels in your hand side-by-side, you realize that the problem, if you call it such, with the stock Glock barrel is not case support, but rather is how loose the chamber is. The stock Glock barrel doesn't lack case support compared to popular designs such as the 1911, at least in its .45 ACP chambering. I've never handled a Delta Elite, so I couldn't comment on how its case support compares to the standard 1911 or Glock factory barrels. But the Glock chamber is rather loose. This isn't a problem if you are shooting ammo within SAAMI specs and you don't care about case life. If you handload, you might want to pic up an aftermarket barrel. Even with a high quality aftermarket barrel like the KKM or BarSto, the Glock still costs less than most HKs, SIGs, and 1911s.
Here is a stock Glock 20 barrel next to a stock length stainless Glock 20 KKM Precision barrel:
And here is the stock Glock 20 barrel next to the stock barrel from a SA MilSpec 1911 .45 ACP:
Here is a stock Glock 20 barrel next to a stock length stainless Glock 20 KKM Precision barrel:
And here is the stock Glock 20 barrel next to the stock barrel from a SA MilSpec 1911 .45 ACP:
Night Watch
New member
^^^ Very good post. Thanks!
Texshooter
New member
Glocks, like all firearms, are very unsafe. There is no elimination of risk. The same is true of flying and driving.
But there are ways we can live to minimize risk.
What I find amusing are the cool aid drinkers (of various flavors) who proclaim just keep your finger off the trigger mantra. Horse puckey.
If a person is stupid enough to put a loaded Glock in their pocket without a holster, there is a very much higher risk they will get shot by their weapon without the finger being near the thing than those with, say, a S&W j frame, or something along those lines.
Glocks can indeed fire without the finger touching the trigger. About 3 years ago an off duty Policeman shot himself at the ACC basketball tourney in Greensboro. He had a Glock in his pocket, inside what appears to be an inadequate holster, and while adjusting his seating position the "safety" was depressed enough to discharge the weapon. No finger but loud bang.
Glocks can easily discharge while reholstering if the "safety" is touched hard enough by the holster.
I also did not realize that "all LEOs carry them." Wow, all of them?
In my little burg, they do. They got them for free. That is ZERO $. Tough decision.
But there are ways we can live to minimize risk.
What I find amusing are the cool aid drinkers (of various flavors) who proclaim just keep your finger off the trigger mantra. Horse puckey.
If a person is stupid enough to put a loaded Glock in their pocket without a holster, there is a very much higher risk they will get shot by their weapon without the finger being near the thing than those with, say, a S&W j frame, or something along those lines.
Glocks can indeed fire without the finger touching the trigger. About 3 years ago an off duty Policeman shot himself at the ACC basketball tourney in Greensboro. He had a Glock in his pocket, inside what appears to be an inadequate holster, and while adjusting his seating position the "safety" was depressed enough to discharge the weapon. No finger but loud bang.
Glocks can easily discharge while reholstering if the "safety" is touched hard enough by the holster.
I also did not realize that "all LEOs carry them." Wow, all of them?
In my little burg, they do. They got them for free. That is ZERO $. Tough decision.
Night Watch
New member
Wow, do I get tired of fielding that one! I refuse to answer it, anymore. Think I'm going to go over to Glock Talk for awhile, sip some nice warm Kool-Aid and rest up. 
MTMilitiaman
New member
"Easily?" Hardly.
If your holster is discharging your weapon, then regardless of which weapon it is, you need to look into a new holster. That's all there is to it.
A properly designed holster will not cause the weapon to fire upon re-holstering. This is true of Glocks as well. I splurged on a $20 Uncle Mikes, and as previously reported, spent the better part of an hour attacking it at all angles with a cleared pistol attempting to make the thumb break fire the weapon, and was unable to do so at any practical angle. Even if the thumb break makes it into the trigger guard, in my experience, it is extremely unlikely that it will fire. Getting it to do so means one of two things, or a combination thereof; you are either incredibly unlucky, or incredibly stupid.
Thumb breaks are usually positioned over the back of the slide. This puts them above the trigger guard in a position that requires an absurdly awkward and unnatural entry angle in order for it to find its way anywhere near the trigger. Through thousands of draws and re-holsterings, I have yet to have it accidentally make it into the trigger guard once. Not once. It can be forced there, but even then it is usually above the trigger safety and even if it manipulates the trigger safety, pulls itself free of the trigger guard long before applying enough force to the trigger to cause it to fire.
You know what kind of care was required to accomplish this feat? First I had to have the common sense to make sure the holster was marked as being made for my make and model of handgun. Secondly, I had to follow pretty straight forward directions to set up the thumb break. Thirdly, I have to insert it muzzle first into the holster.
If your holster is causing your Glock to fire upon re-holstering, it is either incorrect for the make and model of handgun, the thumb break is set up incorrectly, you've done some mad tinkering with your pistol's trigger, or God hates you.
At various times, I've seen evidence that each of these applies to me.
I shot a 24 weekly, some would say weakly, for years. It was in some ways brilliant, both reliable and accurate, and in other ways just odd.
Not having an external safety other than the trigger is an oddity I never warmed to. I believe that trait sold a lot of XDs.
zukiphile, well put.
I see it's funny how pro-Glock people call anyone that questions the Glock a "Glock Hater".
I question the M1A's shifting poi and ease of mounting optics without exotic stocks; does that make me a M1A hater, or a Springfield hater? NO. I've seen people that love the M1A admit and actively discuss some of the problems with the M1A without calling people "M1A Haters".
I dont hate the Glock, I think it's a great weapon. I just wondered, being the op, if the design of the Glock inherently made it less tolerant to mis-handling. Most of my friends shoot and love Glocks.
When someone fervently supports the Glock to the point that no criticism is valid, what does that make them?
I see it's funny how pro-Glock people call anyone that questions the Glock a "Glock Hater".
I question the M1A's shifting poi and ease of mounting optics without exotic stocks; does that make me a M1A hater, or a Springfield hater? NO. I've seen people that love the M1A admit and actively discuss some of the problems with the M1A without calling people "M1A Haters".
I dont hate the Glock, I think it's a great weapon. I just wondered, being the op, if the design of the Glock inherently made it less tolerant to mis-handling. Most of my friends shoot and love Glocks.
When someone fervently supports the Glock to the point that no criticism is valid, what does that make them?
Glocks are utterly unforgiving of any human error.
Humans are falible and error is a fact of life.
Glocks are not "unsafe" because they do exactly what they are designed to do.
People are unsafe because they do not always follow all the rules.
Glocks are POORLY DESIGNED from a human engineering standpoint. This has always been a weakness of Germanic designing and the Glock is continued proof of this. Great machines that work best if never touched by human hands, only robots.
Flame away!
Humans are falible and error is a fact of life.
Glocks are not "unsafe" because they do exactly what they are designed to do.
People are unsafe because they do not always follow all the rules.
Glocks are POORLY DESIGNED from a human engineering standpoint. This has always been a weakness of Germanic designing and the Glock is continued proof of this. Great machines that work best if never touched by human hands, only robots.
Flame away!
zeroskillz
New member
They can be extremely unsafe, depending on which end is pointed at you.
MTMilitiaman
New member
Beautiful thing about Glock, however, is that you can make into whatever you want it to be...
If you think the stock trigger pull is too light to be carried safely, you can put a NY1 or NY2 in it for cheap and have an 8 or 11 pound trigger pull similar to the DA pull on a revolver.
If you think the stock 5.5 pound trigger pull is too heavy to be shot accurately, you can put a 3.5 pound disconnector in it and have a pull of around 4 to 4.5 pounds.
If you want an external safety, Glock has stated they will cover a Cominolli thumb safety under warrenty.
If you want a frame of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or even titanium, CCF Race Frames makes them.
If the grip on your full size Glock 10mm or .45 is too big for you, Arizona Response Systems and Robar, among others, will do a grip reduction.
Most people get Glocks for their simplicity and are fine with them having polymer frames and no speakable external safety. That is kind of the point with a Glock. But Glocks are moderately priced to begin with and compared to most of their competition, you can afford to fool around with them a little to get what you like.
Don't forget, though, that firearms are, by nature of their capabilities, inheriantly unforgiving of human error. This can be said of anything powerful left to human control. If you want to put a safety switch over the accelerator petal of a sports car, fine, but don't expect everyone to understand or agree with it.
If you think the stock trigger pull is too light to be carried safely, you can put a NY1 or NY2 in it for cheap and have an 8 or 11 pound trigger pull similar to the DA pull on a revolver.
If you think the stock 5.5 pound trigger pull is too heavy to be shot accurately, you can put a 3.5 pound disconnector in it and have a pull of around 4 to 4.5 pounds.
If you want an external safety, Glock has stated they will cover a Cominolli thumb safety under warrenty.
If you want a frame of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or even titanium, CCF Race Frames makes them.
If the grip on your full size Glock 10mm or .45 is too big for you, Arizona Response Systems and Robar, among others, will do a grip reduction.
Most people get Glocks for their simplicity and are fine with them having polymer frames and no speakable external safety. That is kind of the point with a Glock. But Glocks are moderately priced to begin with and compared to most of their competition, you can afford to fool around with them a little to get what you like.
Don't forget, though, that firearms are, by nature of their capabilities, inheriantly unforgiving of human error. This can be said of anything powerful left to human control. If you want to put a safety switch over the accelerator petal of a sports car, fine, but don't expect everyone to understand or agree with it.
Really? You mean they will pay for installation of this safety?
I think that is brilliant. They should publicise this better.
Not to re-ignite any 1911 v. glock rivalries, but I could see glock making huge inroads into the current 1911 market with that thumb safety and a 3.5 trigger on a single stack, 1911 grip angled .45acp.
FWIW, I've shot a friend's 36 (?, the single stack, 6 round, .45acp) that printed a single quarter sized ragged hole at 50'. I thought it was a fluke, so I tried a second magazine with the same result. I was impressed.
- Status