Are Glocks unsafe ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Not having an external safety other than the trigger is an oddity I never warmed to. I believe that trait sold a lot of XD’s.
Click to expand...

:) I, also, think that’s very well said!

Originally Posted by Musketeer
Glocks are utterly unforgiving of any human error. Humans are fallible and error is a fact of life.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t necessarily have to be a mistake; sometimes it can be an accident or unintended consequence of something you do like reaching for your pistol in the dark, or underneath a pillow – Bang! :eek:

Originally Posted by MTMilitiaman
If you want a frame of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, or even titanium, CCF Race Frames makes them.
Click to expand...

Right now, CCF Race Frames is only producing metal frames for a limited number of Glock models like the: 17’s, 22’s, 24’s, 31’s, 34’s and 35’s, as well as the 37.

Originally Posted by SDC
They're only as unsafe as the person holding/using them.
Click to expand...

Or, as unlucky! ;)







Glock will NOT pay for the installation of a Cominolli Safety. All they will do is NOT un:install it while they’re making other repairs to your pistol.
 
Right now, CCF Race Frames is only producing metal frames for a limited number of Glock models like the: 17’s, 22’s, 24’s, 31’s, 34’s and 35’s, as well as the 37.
Click to expand...

Or, in other words, about 3/4 of Glocks sold ;)
 
...only if you are.

Of course there are plenty of people in this country who would deem ANY firearm "unsafe" for anyone.:rolleyes: So I guess it depends on who you ask.
 
I apologize for forgetting the name of the gentleman who first posted these photos.
But we all owe him thanks for putting the case support issue in clear perspective.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 40SWcasesupport.jpg
    40SWcasesupport.jpg
    113.7 KB · Views: 274
How Dangerous are Glocks? Well...

Glocks have NO manual safety but the shooter, thus Glocks are as unsafe as the shooter.

Unfortunately for Glock owners, even the most experienced and educated shooter CAN do something stupid or inattentive.

With a Glock, that stupidity or inattention will probably cost the shooter his life. On a weapon with a manual safety, the shooter has to make an additional, separate, conscious and definite move to put himself in danger.
 
Are glocks unsafe? They're guns! Of course they are not safe!

That's why we have to follow safety rules when using them.
 
I have an original GLOCK model 21-45 acp

And 4 or 5 thousand rounds(or more) later it still shoots anything I put in it including my reloads.It looks like a plastic toy but it shure doesn't shoot like one.I would trust my life to it.How many can you say that for?:cool:
 
This seems a bit like the anti's saying that firearms lead to crime, social ills, skyrocketing healthcare costs, obesity or whatever. A glock or any handgun, is a mechanical device that relies on a human operator to function. It can only be as safe as the person using it.
 
Glock states, "Safe and ingeniously simple: Contrary to conventional, the trigger is the only operating element. All three pistol safeties are deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is released."

The safety on most weapons keeps you from pulling the trigger.

But the Gock is designed to let you deactivate all three of their safeties by pulling the trigger.

Hmmmm.
 
The safety on most weapons keeps you from pulling the trigger.

But the Gock is designed to let you deactivate all three of their safeties by pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

The Glock safeties are designed to prevent the gun from firing when the user does NOT intend to fire and not to impede the user when he DOES intend to fire.

The way you demonstrate your intent to fire is by pulling the trigger--just as you would with any other gun**.

**Assuming you believe in the three rules of gun safety--primarily Rule 2.
 
Basically, the Glock is less safe than other modern designs. The gun has no manual safety, and has a light trigger with very little reset. Combine this with the fact that many end users install 3.5 pound connectors and you have mathematical certainty that Glocks will result in more ND/AD.

Is the Glock unsafe? You damn betcha--it is a gun (Cooper?) Is it so much more dangerous than say, a da/sa design that you shouldn't carry it? No. Glocks are like driving a Kia, SIGs are like driving an SUV.
 
When I was shopping for a compact semiauto I considered the glock. Did lots of research first, and these things scared me away:

-Unsupported/loose chambers - whether ammo was faulty or not, this certainly only increases the likelihood of an exploding handgun. It just makes common sense. The case is designed to be surrounded by a fat metal barrel when fired.

-firing out of battery - this was a big one.

-an incomprehensible trigger on the end of the trigger, which may be the stupidest thing about these guns. You know how in the movies, the big red SELF DESTRUCT button has a little door that closes over it, to keep someone from bumping into it? Yeah, that's a safety. You wouldn't call it a safety if they just put a smaller self-destruct button on top of the actual self-destruct button! It'd STILL be easy to accidentally hit (or non-accidentally). I think Glock should not be using the word 'safety' to describe that thing.

-the requirement that the trigger be pulled to disassemble. The trigger should only HAVE to be pulled for ONE REASON. Imagine if our Big Red Self Destruct Button mentioned above needed to be pressed before you could shut down the Self Destruct system for cleaning? Are you kidding me!? :eek:

-The lack of an external, manually operated safety or decocker (like the Walther p99 has. Now that's a decent design).

-Polygonal rifling that limits your ammo options, and warnings from the manufacturer shooing customers away from lead bullets and reloads.

These things together spooked me away.

I bought a CZ-75 P-01 and haven't looked back.

I will revisit the idea of purchasing a Glock when Gaston stops disguising recalls as 'upgrades' and stops pretending these things are perfect.

I even have a good reason for owning one - I have a Kel-Tec Sub2000 that takes Glock 17 magazines. I have two 17-rounders and a 33 round magazine. It'd be nice to have a pistol that could share those mags, but my problems with the Glock design are enough to deter it. If I did go that route, I'd be installing the aftermarket safety on the trigger, replacing the barrel with an aftermarket non-polygonal match-grade barrel, and definitely wouldn't buy one in anything other than 9mm until I'm sure the firing out of battery issue is no more.
 
SpectreBlofeld, Well said sir.
I think that many folks feel the same way but are not able to express it as well.

Personally I think the Glock is a fine weapon. They have a lot going for them.
However I feel its design makes it better suited to a more experienced handler. In my opinion it is NOT a good choice for a beginner.


Now here's where I will get flamed once again...

I personally believe that if a person can not understand the complex operation of a manual safety then perhaps they are not quite ready to own a firearm.

But then I believe that the four rules should be taught in elementary school.
 
Glocks lack a manual safety switch, so they can be seen as unsafe...

This is true. Before I understood how a Glocks trigger works I didn't dare handle mine with a round in the chamber until I was ready to shoot it right there and then.

But DAO Sigs don't have any safeties on them. And their DA/SA handguns only have a de-cocker on some. No hammer or firing pin blocks at all. Same for Rugers and allot of other brands and models when you think about it. Revolvers S/A or D/A don't have any safties either for that matter. So why are Glocks thought of as being so unsafe when all these other guns offer no safety as well?

I don't really understand why anyone would need a de-cocker. I suppose they're convienient, but are they nessesary? And is a handgun with one somehow more safe than a Hammer-less gun?

Do the HK P2000 series have manual safety switches? I've never seen one in real life, but they don't look like they do, AND they have exposed hammers. A S&W 4046 DAO doesn't have any type of safety or decocker. Are they "unsafe"? How about the Walther P99's "Quick Action"? My point is, Glocks aren't the only handguns with no manual safeties on them, but they are one of the only guns to have triple internal safety systems. Granted, manual safety switches offer a visual cue and added sense of safety, but that doesn't mean they are MORE safe than Glocks "Safe Action".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top