Glock Safe Action Unsafe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frankly, I can see a case to attach a light loaded and a way to do it without violating the 4 laws of gun safety.

On the other hand, I can see why a light maker recommends applying the light to an unloaded gun. They want to minimize liability.

Basically, we all agree. The cause is that the trigger was pulled. How do you stop inadvertent trigger pulling? Most here will say training. While that sounds great and I agree,.....that would never pass any solution evaluation. Remember gun shot wounds have been known to kill. Not sure if there are deaths linked to the Glock design. Training would fail because it lacks "hardness" of solution. Basically to achieve engineering approval, you would have to show where liability was removed from the operator and taken on by the mechanism.

Therefore, you need the gun to prevent inadvertent trigger pull.....that would be some kind of manual safety or something to block the rail when the gun is loaded. The rail block would fail evaluation because it doesn't keep the user from trying to apply the light to the rail.

So, I see manual safety remaining. Other proposals?
 
Therefore, you need the gun to prevent inadvertent trigger pull.....that would be some kind of manual safety or something to block the rail when the gun is loaded.
Click to expand...

By your requirement a DA/SA pistol, DAO pistol, or DA revolver would fail your "solution evaluation" as well if they lacked a safety. Your argument seems to be that the pistol should somehow stop the shooter from being negligent. I know of no such design. Even on a manual safety pistol we're talking a slight movement of a mechanical part. In my experience negligent discharges happen because people thought the pistol was unloaded.

I'd point out too that the article is vague in its details of the officer's argument. It tells us the officer was shot while putting on a light. It doesn't tell us how a manual safety would have prevented that shooting.
 
Do we really have to be told to unload a firearm before doing any work on it?

That reminds me of the lady who sued because she burned herself with a cup of hot coffee. Now the cups are marked "HOT COFFEE."
 
As an aside the hot coffee suit was not as egregious as it seems at first glance. McDonalds was WELL outside of industry standards in regards to the temperature of the coffee. The defense was that it was not intended to be immediately consumed and was supposed to be able to still be hot after the customer got to the destination. McDonalds had also been warned by multiple industry experts of the particular danger and the risks posed to customers.

The more I think about it the more I think that Glock MUST settle outside of court, admit no wrong doing or defect, and just make this go away. Imagine if Glock were to lose in court. Because their design has been the same since... well forever finding the design itself negligent would require action by Glock to remedy every one out there - this is not the Ruger transfer bar issue where Ruger had other profitable models without the issue. The cost to Glock would be astronomical if not insurmountable - it could bankrupt the company. It is to my untrained mind the very definition of a nuisance suit. Sure you could defend it but the cost of defense coupled with the potential cost of a failed defense makes it almost untenable to defend.
 
Glock has never lost a lawsuit. That's because you'll really not find very many that go all the way. Glock, sensitive to its image and its touting being fool-proof and with its own internal safeties, has been settling cases since the first "Glock leg" incident occurred. This, to avoid publicity.
 
Last edited:
Also, especially if you're a federal law enforcement agent, DONT give a demonstration using a loaded .40 cal Glock to a classroom full of kids.
Click to expand...

That had to be the one single stupidest shooting event I have ever heard of. Carrying a gun with loaded chamber into a classroom, showing it off to the class, firing it into the floor by "accident". No excuse whatsoever. The fool was so lucky that it had to be the hand of God stepping in. Where did that bullet go when the thing ricocheted off of that concrete floor? he had kids line up from front to back, and at the wrong angle he would almost inevitibly hit someone.

The second stupidest event has whole bunch of people all tied up. The guy who was carrying a glock in his sweat pants in the scrotal hanging position who reached in to give himself an adjustment and put a bullet through his nads is an example of just how stupid a person can be.

If you have your finger in the guard, whatever the reason, exercise control of the trigger, don't just hang it on the trigger.
 
By your requirement a DA/SA pistol, DAO pistol, or DA revolver would fail your "solution evaluation" as well if they lacked a safety. Your argument seems to be that the pistol should somehow stop the shooter from being negligent. I know of no such design. Even on a manual safety pistol we're talking a slight movement of a mechanical part. In my experience negligent discharges happen because people thought the pistol was unloaded.
Click to expand...



A da action pistol has a long, drawn out, drag of a trigger pull. That is it's own safety feature, just like the half cock of a lever rifle, etc. I'ts very unlikely that a DA will be accidentally pulled all the way through that cycle. Not impoassible, but very unlikely. It is not like grabbing a glock and accidentally pulling it through the light quarter inch. A DA revolver has no safety because the safety is built in.

A SA revolver can't fire until cocked. Not a simple thing to do. then, you have to pull the trigger.

Neither of those things are simply accomplished without deliberation. You are left in the case of a revolver discharge that a person almost had to be carrying it around cocked. anyone comparing the action of a revolver to a semiauto, even a DA semiauto, is kind of barking up the wrong telephone pole. Not really a proper comparison.

I have to disagree with the comment about a safety being easily disengaged by accident. I've never had one that could be pulled off so easily that they presented a danger of accidentally being disengaged. All of mine were really small and protected by the slide and/or grips, and they all had detents to stop them.

Sure, some others are probably missing those features, but seriously, if it is easily swept off by general carrying, that feature should not be referred to as a "safety". It isn't safe if it doesn't prevent a handgun from being pushed into firing position accidentally, A switch like that is an open invitation to burning in the purgatory of court for eternity.
 
anyone comparing the action of a revolver to a semiauto, even a DA semiauto, is kind of barking up the wrong telephone pole. Not really a proper comparison.
Click to expand...



I was responding to a comment that the pistol should prevent the user from inadvertently pulling the trigger. Only a manual safety, imo, really stops the trigger being pulled. If the pull was so heavy that it stopped you from using the pistol the pistol wouldn't be particularly effective. I get you're saying that it requires more effort than say a Glock, but to me not enough to stop someone all the time. In my experience most negligent discharges happen when the person thinks the pistol doesn't have a round chambered. The trigger pull in those cases is deliberate, not accidental.



It is not like grabbing a glock and accidentally pulling it through the light quarter inch.
Click to expand...



To me the notion that I could "accidentally" touch off a round on a Glock is a misrepresentation of what happened. How am I "grabbing" it so that it discharges, and why am I grabbing at it? I carried DA/SA pistols for some time. This isn't just me having a love affair with "safe-action" type pistols.



I have to disagree with the comment about a safety being easily disengaged by accident. I've never had one that could be pulled off so easily that they presented a danger of accidentally being disengaged. All of mine were really small and protected by the slide and/or grips, and they all had detents to stop them.
Click to expand...



I didn't say it could be disengaged by accident. My point was relying on the slight movement of a mechanical object to make up for poor gun handling isn't really a solution. This is especially true as in the case of the magazine disconnect example I gave earlier it can lead to reliance on a safety feature that can cause real issues for that shooter if he/she happens to switch models. Does it automatically mean poor gun handling? Of course not, but to me it is something to watch for.



If your assumption is the pistol was falling and the officer grabbed at it, I'd point out that grabbing at a falling gun is a terrible idea. Most pistols have some form of drop safety and it's better to rely on that then potentially jam your finger into the trigger (though a fair point is that not all pistols do have a firing pin block or similar safety).

Again we're reading a lot into a story that really has very few details. We also have 3/4 of the golden rules broken. A loaded pistol handled when it didn't need to be loaded, a finger on a trigger, and a muzzle pointed at a person (in this case the officer's foot).
 
Last edited:
doublenaughtspy said:
It may be that with 65% of the market share, they have 65% of the idiots.
Click to expand...

To have 65% of the idiots with a 65% market share would mean that the law enforcement market is 100% idiots.

Could be true, but I hope not. I would like to exclude at least myself from that demographic.
 
I didn't say it could be disengaged by accident. My point was relying on the slight movement of a mechanical object to make up for poor gun handling isn't really a solution
Click to expand...

But in a way, as part of designing for confidence, we do. For instance my P938 in my pocket is "cocked and locked". Its A) in a good holster that firmly covers the trigger (a "mechanical device") B) has the mechanical safety engaged and C) has a firing pin safety in case of drop.

While I am not "relying" on them directly that gun would not be carried in my pocket without all three of those issues addressed. While I may carry Glocks at times it would not be in a pocket. In some way I am making a conscious decision involving my gun handling that relies on those things.

Those are three separate mechanical devices to overcome any errors I may make. Those carrying a current production 1911 add another in the beavertail safety.
 
Tunnel rat, it may be that it seemed as If I was disagreeing with you, but not really. There is a point to be made that even without a safety, a lot of guns are almost immune to accidental discharges because of rough handling. for that matter, a glock that isn't carried with one in the chamber is almost immune to an AD.

I agree that careless handling of an "empty" gun is a primary cause, carrying with the finger in the guard another, and just being stupid is another.

Let's talk about being stupid. Many years ago some guy was in the john at a walmart and had an accidental discharge (not what you think) in the stall. News reports referred to his "cowboy style" gun discharging. Take it at face value, WTH? We can pretty much assume that he was carrying a modern transfer bar. I am beyond even a reasonable level of confusion how someone accidentally fired his blackhawk in the can at walmart. Granted, maybe he just hated the place,
 
Lohman446 said:
But in a way, as part of designing for confidence, we do. For instance my P938 in my pocket is "cocked and locked". Its A) in a good holster that firmly covers the trigger (a "mechanical device") B) has the mechanical safety engaged and C) has a firing pin safety in case of drop.



While I am not "relying" on them directly that gun would not be carried in my pocket without all three of those issues addressed. While I may carry Glocks at times it would not be in a pocket. In some way I am making a conscious decision involving my gun handling that relies on those things.



Those are three separate mechanical devices to overcome any errors I may make. Those carrying a current production 1911 add another in the beavertail safety.
Click to expand...



And that's you choice to choose that system, but there are those that carry say a Glock 43 or Glock 42 also in a pocket holster. If you want to choose a system for your reasons that's your choice; I'm just a guy on the internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
briandg said:
I have to disagree with the comment about a safety being easily disengaged by accident.
Click to expand...

In a couple decades of carrying a Hi-Power, I've reached down and found that the safety was off maybe three times. It was holstered the whole time so not sure how it happened; but it can happen. That's not really easy though, I'd agree.

Lohman46 said:
The more I think about it the more I think that Glock MUST settle outside of court, admit no wrong doing or defect, and just make this go away.
Click to expand...

Glock is in a weaker litigation position. They have no other products to bring in income and they own 65% of the U.S. LE market. They won't settle every suit. They'll settle the "ew" suits that look iffy and the fight to the finish when they get the right plaintiff. That's how you eventually build up the case law supporting your product.
 
Last edited:
In a couple decades of carrying a Hi-Power, I've reached down and found that the safety was off maybe three times. It was holstered the whole time so not sure how it happened; but it can happen. That's not really easy though, I'd agree.
Click to expand...

I had it happen once with a 1911 about 10-12 years ago. I overreacted and quit carrying the 1911 design until the Sig P938 came out (ok not the exact same design). I'm thinking about going back to the 1911 and am curious if any really good ones are available without the ambidextrous safety (I kind of blame it)
 
What I am seeing here is that some people like Glock and carry them with no problem whatsoever. Some people don't like them or at least don't feel safe or comfortable carrying them. So, the reason there are so many choices is that clearly some guns, some pieces of equipment, are not for everyone.

Carry what you like and what your comfortable with and unafraid of its manual of arms. Glock has many virtues and we've extolled them upon the brand throughout this forum. But there, too, are detractors. You make your decision based on weighing all things in the balance.

The rub here comes in with LEOs who have no say-so in the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top