Glock Safe Action Unsafe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
incidents

There are other Glock AD episodes, reholstering with an obstruction at the mouth of the holster, or the loaded pistol gets stuffed into an odd location w/o a holster and the trigger(s) get depressed, with a discharge resulting. The takedown drill is AD prone as well.

But I do not see the design as unsafe. Glocks, by the nature of their design, are just not as tolerant of sloppy gun handling and unsafe practice.
 
Glocks, by the nature of their design, are just not as tolerant of sloppy gun handling and unsafe practice.
Click to expand...

That is a great way of putting it....although, I think depending on specific laws, this could hurt Glock. To Glocks defense, most gunmakers have followed their "no manual safety" design. It will be hard today yo limit the liability to Glock alone.
 
This could happen with any firearm. If I try to attach a light to a 1911 with my hand on the beaver-tail and the safety off it could easily go off as well. Which is about as smart as trying to attach a light to any loaded firearm - I'm willing to bet that is something the manufacturer of the light cautions against.
 
Article from Guns.com

I really hate to see this, but I kind of agree. Glock has taken the reasonably safe 12 lb da revolver trigger and made it 5-6 lbs and shorter.

I agree it is easier to shoot accurately under stress, and you will n very forget the thumb safety, but Glock leg hurts!

Do you support this line of thought or do we blame the shooter again for another Glock ND? Just asking....
Click to expand...

The owner bought it. Its the owner's fault for believing the nonsense.
Friends don't let friends drive Glocks?
 
From the article:

Despite the criticism, the company is the leading producer of handguns for law enforcement with 65 percent of market share.
Click to expand...

When you have 65% of the market share, you're guaranteed that at least 15% of your users are below average. No way to avoid stupidity. Sounds like this guy was pretty close to the bottom.
 
Probably a dept required pistol since he was leo.
Click to expand...

Thought that to but the article describes it as a 19C (maybe incorrectly) which would make it compensated. I doubt many departments are issuing compensated pistols.
 
Guys, help me out with something, please.

First off, I'm neither here nor there with Glock. I am, however, not a fan in the least of issuing striker-fired pistols to LEOs. As stated above, my own personal assessment is that the trigger on a striker fired pistol is just too unforgiving when compared to DA/SA pistols (or revolvers). I also don't like external safeties on a duty weapon or carry gun. (BTW, I do own three striker fired pistols and like them and trust them a lot. Two have no external safeties, one has the grip safety and trigger tab.)

Secondly, putting aside the idiot who works on a loaded gun and winds up shooting himself, its called "Glock leg" for a reason.

Now, we estimate that 65% of LEOs carry Glock, a figure I easily agree with. I don't think anyone knows how many ADs or NDs or UDs or whatever you want to call them involve Glocks. But I would venture to say most would be with a Glock just by the sheer majority of the market they hold.

But, not just in the moron's case of shooting himself while attaching a light, most of you guys claim lack of training when things go wrong with a Glock. I get that too. And I am in agreement.

Question: The Serpa holster, banned in some places, still used in others, including myself and the agencies I work with, we all point to the 2011 self-inflicted gunshot wound by I think Tex something or other. And here we blame the holster. If there was a way to extrapolate the numbers of Glocks and the years in service they've got, and the numbers of ADs or NDs they've had, against the number of Serpas issued and ADs or NDs attributed to the Serpa, I think the Glock has the Serpa beat. No?

So, why with the Glock we blame lack of training; but with Serpa we blame the holster? The holster didn't pull the trigger. Thoughts?
 
When you have 65% of the market share, you're guaranteed that at least 15% of your users are below average. No way to avoid stupidity. Sounds like this guy was pretty close to the bottom.
Click to expand...

This assumes that average is at 50%. That isn't likely to be the case, but I think you are on the right track. Chances are that when you own a large market share, you have a large share of the customers who don't get it. It may be that with 65% of the market share, they have 65% of the idiots.

From the article cited in the OP...
The Glock pistol’s lack of a manual safety and other similar features are the subject of what the lawsuit characterizes as defects that led to the injury.
Click to expand...

I am NOT a personal fan of Glocks. However, I completely fail to understand how not having a manual safety is a defect. That is part of the reason departments buy these guns is because they don't want manual safeties. Next, somebody will claim that the gun is defective because bullets fly out of the barrel at velocity. :mad:

From what I gather, since the problem is a lack of a manual safety, they must be arguing that Larry Jones did in fact pull the trigger. If that is the case, then the gun did exactly what it was designed to do in the manner it was designed to do it.

I liked this quote...
http://bluelivesmatter.blue/cop-sues-glock-shoots/
That must have been a rough 13 years shooting this dangerously “defective” gun.
Click to expand...
 
I have a... I'm not sure what I have in regards to Glock. I own a couple and carry a G29 for hiking. My wife keeps a 17C as her gun.

I prefer firearms with external hammers. When reholstering a 1911 I hook my finger under the hammer. With DA/SA firearms I put my hand over the hammer so I would feel it move should the trigger get caught on the holster. With my revolvers (I like exposed hammers) I keep part of my hand over the hammer for the same reason.

This is not an option on a Glock and I do not reholster one by "feel" - only by looking.

I get the argument but a properly handled Glock is no more unsafe than any other firearm out there. If a department is concerned the stock trigger is too light Glock can solve this (and I believe has for some).
 
The lawsuit is going to be a loser, based on the FACTS, but might win based on the jury's FEELINGS.

The Ruger New Model action came about because of that. ALL the facts showed the USER was the cause, but the jury FELT otherwise.

This suit is a loser, to me, simply and directly on the face of it, because of the claim that the GLock design is defective.

It's not defective. It's WRONG (my opinion), but its not defective.

It is interesting to note how, over the last century +, we have come nearly full circle. JM Browning didn't put a thumb safety on his prototype .45. He felt the grip safety was enough. Though a design genius, Browning wasn't a combat user. The Army (specifically the cavalry) wanted a thumb safety, so Browning added one, and the result became the 1911.

Today, we have a number of people who don't want a manual safety on a combat/duty pistol. The argument I hear most for this viewpoint is that the 7user may "forget" to disengage the manual safety, and therefore be at a potentially deadly disadvantage.

I will not dispute that this has, on occasion, happened. However, I think that over a century's use of various models of semi autos with safeties, in both war (combat) and peace (police use) has proven that while it sometimes happens, it is not a general problem.

The "no safety" crowd also disregards numerous documented instances where a shooting didn't happen (most likely a life saved, usually an LEO) when the bad guy got the gun with the manual safety ON, and didn't know/realize how to disengage it.

The Glock "trigger activation switch" type safety is mechanically safe. It, combined with other design features makes the gun drop safe. Arguably not AS safe as some other designs, but it is safe.

IT IS NOT USER SAFE!!! (Nothing IS), but the Glock system requires fewer things to "go wrong" than some other designs.

This is not a defect, it is by INTENT! You may disagree with the design intent, (I do), but you cannot honestly say it is defective. On that basis alone, the lawsuit should lose. GLock is responsible for the way they make their guns, very true. But they are not responsible for the way people use or misuse them. Nor is any other gun maker.
 
I will not dispute that this has, on occasion, happened. However, I think that over a century's use of various models of semi autos with safeties, in both war (combat) and peace (police use) has proven that while it sometimes happens, it is not a general problem.

The "no safety" crowd also disregards numerous documented instances where a shooting didn't happen (most likely a life saved, usually an LEO) when the bad guy got the gun with the manual safety ON, and didn't know/realize how to disengage it.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the first paragraph. The rifles and shotguns I can think of have manual safeties, and yet people manage to use them under stress. There might be some argument that drawing a pistol from concealment involves less preparation time than using a shotgun or rifle require to get into action, but I still think it's something that can be trained around. This is coming from a guy that carries Glocks.

Just like I think the notion that safeties are deathtraps is overblown, I have to disagree on the second paragraph. I think the chances of you being saved by an attacker getting your gun and not being able to disengage the safety are also relatively low. Safeties aren't generally hidden or hard to operate on pistols, or that would take away their utility. Also, while I'm a realist that a gun can be taken away from you, when that does happen it's a really bad day and I'm not sure banking on the safety saving you is a good idea. Has it happened? Sure as you said there are documented cases. But we as humans tend to place an overwhelming amount of value on anecdotal evidence.
 
Completely agree. The same can be said for Backup Cameras, ABS and Stability Control systems in cars...Airbags too. They are all a waste for safe competent drivers.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this, strongly. I drive 25,000 miles a year, so twice the national average (though less than many on here), and almost all of that is highway. There isn't a week that goes by that some genius doesn't decide to cut me off, go through a red light, or engage in some other example of stupidity in action. I can tell you of a number of times that stability control has seriously saved me from being in an accident, and I can tell you of another case where an airbag saved my wife when she was rear ended. One of my cars has backup cameras and on cars that find themselves more sloped for aerodynamics it does help to make sure nothing is in the way when there are many children on bikes, as in my neighborhood. These safety features don't protect me from myself in my case, they protect me from the other idiots out there.

Now a smart debater would then suggest that more safety features on guns would prevent negligent discharges that have on numerous occasions resulted in the deaths of those around the gun owners. That may well be true. However I don't think the car to gun analogy is truly accurate in this case. When I drive, ABS, airbags, stability control, etc. don't notably impact my ability to drive. The car might be slightly heavier as a result, but from my perspective it's easy to forget that those devices are there as the reliability of those devices is generally high and they typically don't impact other features of the vehicle. With a pistol that is not the case. A manual safety adds time and complication to getting that gun into action. As it's name indicates, I have to manually disengage or engage that feature whereas on the car it's automatic. While I think this is something that can be trained around, as I indicated above, I do understand the concerns of those that choose to not use pistols with those features and I feel they shouldn't be required.

What happened in this case was a finger on the trigger when it didn't need to be. I've put lights on/off pistols. I don't advice doing it with the pistol loaded, but frankly even if you did commit that mistake you still wouldn't need your finger on the trigger. This is why I am a strong believe in the difference between an accidental and a negligent discharge.
 
Especially when the hard data are so scarce. In line with that, every time a cop gets killed or shot in some off-the-wall way no one's ever heard of or done before, we incorporate that anomalous event into our training protocols.

Humans are like that. "If it can happen to that guy, it can happen to me."
 
The last FBI requirements mandated no external safety IIRC. Going to be pretty hard to argue that lack of an external safety is inherently dangerous in court.
 
^ It's true, and it's also very easy to let habit start ruling your behavior. In a neighboring state there was a story of the chief of a department who had a negligent discharge in his own office when he was cleaning his service weapon. The department had recently switched from pistols that had magazine disconnects to Glocks. He got to the part of the disassembly phase for a Glock where you have to pull the trigger (and as much as I like Glocks I do think other manufacturers taking away this requirement for disassembly was a good idea) and he did so with a loaded chamber. Bang. No one was hurt other than some pride, but it showed that this department was used to handling pistols with loaded chambers if the magazines were out because they had come to rely on that safety feature. That safety feature had made them complacent about good gun handling behavior.
 
I'm not a big Glock fan. That being said, I can't begin to understand all the negativity surrounding the Glock line of pistols.

How is a Glock that much different than many of the other striker fired guns on the market? M&P, Springfield XD, the new Sig P320, etc. These guns and many others all share a similar operating system.

I've had people tell me Glocks are unsafe, then proceed to explain how much they like the M&P! ( that didn't have a manual safety btw)
 
This also isn't the first time the trigger has come up in court either due to negligence of the owner.:

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/05/1...zed-ex-lapd-cop-settles-with-glock-gun-maker/

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1607271.html

Again I disagree and think it was the officer's fault 100% for creating the situation. But this may have encouraged dunderhead 2 to file a suit. I imagine the settled to avoid the media circus:

http://blog.cvn.com/cvn-to-webcast-trial-in-paralyzed-cops-product-liability-lawsuit-against-glock

Strange though that S&W now has the same "trigger problem" as Glock.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top