You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Glock Safe Action Unsafe?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
They have no other products to bring in income
There is the knife and the shovel!
The rub here comes in with LEOs who have no say-so in the matter.
An excellent point. I can choose not to carry a Glock as a concealed weapon if I choose. I choose not to, although if I were a sworn officer I would be fine carrying one as a service weapon on my belt. I do not understand the bureaucratic system that requires officers to carry the same weapon. As long as they can qualify with the one of their choosing, in an approved caliber and capacity, what difference does it make? I know there may be monetary advantages, but with all the choices available I doubt it is enough justify mandating a Glock if an officer is more comfortable with another weapon. That does not dismiss an officer's responsibility to learn and follow all safety practices with the weapon he carries. If he cannot, or will not, he should find something else to do.
K_Mac I have no personal experience but I know one officer who was allowed to carry a .357 in place of a .38 as long as all his speed loaders were loaded with .38 cartridges. The theory being in the event of another officer needing to reload from this officer's equipment it would be possible. With semi-automatic pistols magazine interchangeability is an advantage (though one can question if it has ever actually been a concern).
I imagine the other concern is knowledge of a battery of arms. An officer who has only ever shot a department issued Glock may fumble if he or she was forced to press another officer's 1911 into play.
I imagine the other concern is knowledge of a battery of arms. An officer who has only ever shot a department issued Glock may fumble if he or she was forced to press another officer's 1911 into play.
DubC-Hicks
New member
K_mac, as an LEO, those would be my guesses as well. If I was in a firefight of some sort and ran out of ammo, it'd be nice if I could use my partners magazines. But truth is, if I'm in a firefight like that, I should have the AR in my hands instead of a pistol.
And the point of manual of arms commonality is a good one. Sadly, a great amount of officers are not gun enthusiasts, and would not be proficient with a different firearm if they had to pick up their partners gun for some reason and it was a different model.
And the point of manual of arms commonality is a good one. Sadly, a great amount of officers are not gun enthusiasts, and would not be proficient with a different firearm if they had to pick up their partners gun for some reason and it was a different model.
Actually, K_mac brings a new perspective to a long held belief that all weapons, calibers, and ammo had to be the same. And this was in the event of a battle-field pick up from the officer next to you so that you knew the gun as your own. Same with ammo; in the event you are pinned down you can share the ammo of your partner.
Assuming for a moment that the better than even odds are that any agency is using 9mm Luger (typically Speer) and issuing it, there must be magazine and ammo compatibility within the striker-fired and DA/SA world. If an agency requires say only semi auto DA/SA 9mm with 4" bbl and no external safety, I wonder if there's magazine compatibility among some DA/SA semi autos. If so, why not allow the choice within that sphere of qualifications?
Assuming for a moment that the better than even odds are that any agency is using 9mm Luger (typically Speer) and issuing it, there must be magazine and ammo compatibility within the striker-fired and DA/SA world. If an agency requires say only semi auto DA/SA 9mm with 4" bbl and no external safety, I wonder if there's magazine compatibility among some DA/SA semi autos. If so, why not allow the choice within that sphere of qualifications?
I do not understand the bureaucratic system that requires officers to carry the same weapon. As long as they can qualify with the one of their choosing, in an approved caliber and capacity, what difference does it make?
Allow me to remind you that people who have this sort of legal responsibility are going to want to remain conservative and consistent in as many ways possible. Part of that is to have firm and uniform policies. In a legal situation that can pick up on any simple thing and manage to score a win with it, leave as few opportunities as possible. Giving every officer in a department a glock of either nine or forty creates a very uniform situation.
If a killing takes place, and it's a guy who shoots the only .45 in the department full of glocks, it's going to stand out. It's a toehold for a lawyer. Why is only one officer carrying a bigger, more powerful and lethal gun, and why did he just shoot the unarmed child?
Look at dirty harry. Forty years ago? the guy was a renegade. He used a non-regulation gun, super powerful, killed everyone in sight, etc... Even forty years ago people recognized that being that different was controversial enough that you could make a successful series of movies based on just the character and his gun.
In most cases it's going to be a matter of conformity. The equipment must match. sometimes its a legal matter, in that no person can be seen to use non regulation equipment.
I can touch on this subject. I know someone who had an unmodified Glock 19. He is a shooting partner of mine and is very well trained with all types of firearms and has great weapons manipulation and handling. He was on one knee removing one pistol from his safe and adding another-the Glock to it, I was right there, he dropped his loaded glock from about 1.5 feet high and it went off sending lead through his wall and out side into his shed. I cannot comment in a negative way at all against Glock because I like them but I have always felt a little curious about how safe they are if dropped while loaded. I am a Glock armorer and am VERY familiar with the way they work. Yes you would think the trigger would have to be pulled for it to fire but I saw this one go off with just a small drop.
briandg I understand the need for bureaucrats to have uniform, conservative, consistent and orderly policy. That is what makes bureaucracy work, heaven help us. I did not suggest allowing 44 mag or even 45 acp, unless that is on the approved list. If 9 mm handguns with 15-17 rounds of Speer HP ammo is the policy, there are probably a dozen guns that could meet that standard. I am not sure why a striker fired weapon with or without an external safety, a DA/SA weapon, or a DAO weapon wouldn't be acceptable. That does not consider the case for interchangeable magazines though, or the desire for a single operating system.
I can touch on this subject. I know someone who had an unmodified Glock 19. He is a shooting partner of mine and is very well trained with all types of firearms and has great weapons manipulation and handling. He was on one knee removing one pistol from his safe and adding another-the Glock to it, I was right there, he dropped his loaded glock from about 1.5 feet high and it went off sending lead through his wall and out side into his shed. I cannot comment in a negative way at all against Glock because I like them but I have always felt a little curious about how safe they are if dropped while loaded. I am a Glock armorer and am VERY familiar with the way they work. Yes you would think the trigger would have to be pulled for it to fire but I saw this one go off with just a small drop.
I am not surprised by this. I would never trust any loaded firearm being dropped. Too many variables go into that equation and the chance of firing is always there. Could a manual safety have prevented it from firing? Maybe...but again there would still be a chance when dropped.
Could it be that your friend won't admit that his finger grabbed the trigger as it slipped from his hand?
why when its glock does everyone always blame the user rather than glock? there is a chance it was the gun not the user. glock has done a good job at marketing...
^^ it might have something to do with the fact that a Glock, as do many other pistols, has a striker block that should make discharges from drops pretty close to impossible.
I get your point but if we dismiss immediately all counter-examples to our conclusion can we really argue our conclusion is based on all the evidence available?
Lohman are you saying that without proof it's never happened, we have to accept that it has? A Glock can fire if the trigger is accidentally pressed when dropped. Because of the firing system, firing because of falling is unlikely at best. I have never seen or heard of a credible example of it happening. Have you?
Lohman are you saying that without proof it's never happened, we have to accept that it has? A Glock can fire if the trigger is accidentally pressed when dropped. Because of the firing system, firing because of falling is unlikely at best. I have never seen or heard of a credible example of it happening. Have you?
I have only ever seen one accidental discharge (an old Browning shotgun that fired when the round was chambered).
I have also never drop tested any firearm on purpose to observe the results. We are kind of taking Glock's word on this that the mechanical system operates as they expect it to operate when tested.
I'm not even going as far as to say that someone did not reach to grab the gun in Gunslick's example. However if we conclude without evidence that must be what happened we will never have a credible example otherwise.
You really can't dismiss mechanical failure in every case regardless of the circumstances. It's far too easy to blame the operator, and it's thrown out constantly without a single thought given to the possibility that the product was faulty.
Dropping a glock strikes me as being really unlikely to cause a discharge. It's not possible unless that thing was waaayy out of spec or damaged. but it could have happened. Some people are inclined to assume operator error for everything. Some people are inclined to assume otherwise if they don't like the gun in question.
Kmak, we aren't disagreeing. the .44 mag is an example that this situation has been going on since I was a kid.
Our department allows for double stack nines that the officer buys, but will only provide a glock. If I was a deparment head, I'm one who would insist on a uniform handgun. Every weapon kit, from spray to tazer to cuffs would be consistent, so that none of my officers could be singled out as being outliers.
Dropping a glock strikes me as being really unlikely to cause a discharge. It's not possible unless that thing was waaayy out of spec or damaged. but it could have happened. Some people are inclined to assume operator error for everything. Some people are inclined to assume otherwise if they don't like the gun in question.
Kmak, we aren't disagreeing. the .44 mag is an example that this situation has been going on since I was a kid.
Our department allows for double stack nines that the officer buys, but will only provide a glock. If I was a deparment head, I'm one who would insist on a uniform handgun. Every weapon kit, from spray to tazer to cuffs would be consistent, so that none of my officers could be singled out as being outliers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.