Glock Safe Action Unsafe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We don't have to take Glock's word for anything. The firing system requires the trigger to be pressed to finish cocking the pistol and release the striker. This cannot happen from being dropped.
Click to expand...

This is true on a properly manufactured and in spec Glock. I'm not even certain its possible on an out of spec or improperly manufactured Glock.

What I am saying is dismissing every time something goes wrong as user error without clear evidence is a very good way of building a database of user error issues.

I am not saying that this particular incident (the Gunslick describes) was or was not user error. I am pointing out that accepting it as either based on the information we have can lead to an argument based on cherry picked data.

Has anyone, outside of Glock, drop tested 100 different Glocks from various angles? I am willing to bet the answer is no.

Note: This applies to all firearm manufacturers - Glock is the example we are discussing at this time.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I understand your position. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that all must walk in lockstep, carrying the same equipment or be regarded as outliers. I do not make a living dealing with the legal system. Have we completely thrown common sense out the window?
 
My 2 centavos...

The officer has no basis for a lawsuit. The problem here is that he was trying to attach a flashlight on a pistol while the gun was loaded. This is bad practice on any handgun. It's bad practice whether it's a light, a laser or a scope. Bad practice if you are changing the stocks on a revolver or a CZ75.

On the just keep your finger off the trigger mantra. It's always good advice and is one of the 4 basic rules of firearms safety. It's one of the 4 basic rules for a reason...it's one of the most often violated. Not just with Glocks.

But Glocks and similar pistols are less forgiving of being mishandled than some other designs. This we know and it's an obvious truth. They require extra care, particularly when re-holstering and field stripping.

tipoc
 
What I am saying is dismissing every time something goes wrong as user error without clear evidence is a very good way of building a database of user error issues.
Click to expand...

And that's not what I'm trying to do.

I live in a world of probabilities. Notice I said "pretty close to impossible", not impossible. In this instance what I'm doing is pointing out that for a Glock, and frankly a number of other designs with a similar drop safety, discharging in the manner described by Gunslick should not be possible. I especially noted this because of how Gunslick ended his comments:

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.
Click to expand...

This comment seems to question the safety of the design itself. To me to do this based off of one example is a prime example of people letting anecdotal evidence sway their opinions. It's a very human thing to do, but it's not scientific.

Now would I like to know more? Sure and maybe we can get more information. But lacking more information and with the note that this was an unmodified pistol the design should make a discharge mechanically impossible. In that case I side with probability and the design and conclude for myself that either something was wrong with that particular pistol or someone grabbed at it as it fell. I do always make a mental note of when I read such stories and when I start seeing a pattern I get curious. I recommend the same behavior in others when researching a new firearm purchase; check if there are consistent complaints.
 
Yes and no. I've always considered that a relatively stupid scene. If trigger discipline was the only thing we needed and we were all perfect we'd have 2 lb. triggers on every firearm, with as little trigger travel as mechanically needed. As it is we don't. Is that the same as a mechanical safety? No, but it is accepting that humans are fallible to an extent and a little leeway is important. Now some people would have no problem with firearms with triggers as I described above, and others want manual safeties or 10 lb. DA pulls (or both). We all fall differently on the spectrum. The thing to remember is while there is a point in the scene, it is pretty much a Hollywood creation to get the point across to us how cool is Hoot and Delta in general.

For that matter I always use the safety if the firearm has a safety. This is simply because I am a walking example of Murphy's Laws and the day I decide to ignore the safety is the day it gets flipped on somehow and instead of a bang when I press that trigger I get nothing. Also while a Glock does have a striker block, I've never seen an AR-15/M-16 drop tested with no safety.

And am I reading way too much into a meme? Yup. :D
 
And am I reading way too much into a meme? Yup. :D
Click to expand...



:D Super light triggers are a whole nother thang.

Example: there is a reason why you don't want an M14/M1A trigger lighter than
4.5 lbs. Any lighter and you have an excellent chance to experience doubling.
 
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
Click to expand...

If you are a Glock armorer, then you should KNOW how the internal safeties operate to eliminate the possibility of the gun firing if dropped. Add in the fact that the striker is not fully cocked until the trigger is pressed....

I dont believe a stock Glock can possibly fire if dropped from any height unless something enters the trigger guard and moves the trigger fully to the rear.
 
Gunslick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was the gun checked out after the drop and deemed operationally correct by Glock? Or a certified Armorer? Honestly, I worry that is outside of an Armorer's skill set.
 
A gun firing when it shouldn't is at least as bad as one that doesn't fire when its needed to.

I know this is heresy, but a couple years back a range office at a nearby sheriff's office noticed an unusually high number of failure to fire and light primer strikes with their departmental issued Glocks. The range officer is a Glock armorer. He took apart the guns and could not detect what the problem was. Meantime, he pulled several guns off the line and re-issued the deputies new Glocks. Same problem. But he did notice that it was the most recent academy recruits that seemed to be having this problem. And the most recent shipment of Glocks. Glock was notified and sent their armorer down. He detected something was wrong with the firing pins and they appeared misshapen. The Glocks were shipped to GA for further analysis. Conclusion:
Too much iron in the batch of steel from one of their steel providers making the firing pins too brittle. The firing pins would mostly split at the tip and then which ever half was most brittle would break off.
 
Quite honestly, as long as the ammo is uniform and issued by the department, and the pistols meet whatever qualifications are deemed mandatory (external safety, no external safety, striker fired, or DA/SA, etc.) I really don't see what difference it makes. A good shoot is a good shoot. No?
 
I understand your position. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that all must walk in lockstep, carrying the same equipment or be regarded as outliers. I do not make a living dealing with the legal system. Have we completely thrown common sense out the window?
Click to expand...

yes, we as a society have thrown common sense out of the window and tossed a satchel charge after it.

Some people like myself see risks that others may see as ridiculous, and worry about them, while others wrap their anxiety glands around others. The bad thing is that in retrospect, there is a society of tens of millions of people out there who have the gall to judge every other person on the planet and demand justice if their particular sense of moral outrage is piqued.

Some people believe that cutting a redwood is murder and leave ambush devices that can kill wood cutters.

My thoughts are that all possible avenues of legal protection should be taken. Maybe I'm mistaken thinking that a uniform code of weapons would be more defensible.

In any case, I agree, it is nuts that a force should be required to go with uniform weapon codes, but it's not because they should be. It's a defensive measure.

Remember when the official police handgun for the majority of american cities was the found nose .38 special revolver? Even back then police departments were afraid to use hollow point bullets because of public opinion. Even thirty years ago our department was using revolvers and lead, and they were only begining to move into nines.
 
I'm just a guy with a little mechanical fooling around. I have looked at the firearms and looked at the plans, and frankly, I believe that without mechanical problems, an unaltered glock cannot possibly have an AD from a drop. The firing pin is not free floating. It is locked in place and there is no hammer to bang it down. to even have a pin that is free floating set off a primer would take the inertia of a 100 foot drop, probably.

Take a transfer bar revolver. It's impossible to drop the uncocked gun and have it fire. There's a mechanical device that blocks the hammer, and it would take enormous velocity at just the right vector to cause the firing pin to set off the primer.

The floating firing pin on a 1911 is within reason impossible to fire. A study I read reported something like a fifty foot fall at the exact vector before a primer would go off. Push the spring a bit harder or use a lighter pin, and maybe you could drop one all the way from pluto without setting off a primer.

Just go down the list, piece by piece and you will find that a huge number of firearms have built in safety devices that prevent impact firing. Floating pins, transfer bars, hammer or pin blocks, some of these are very simple and fool proof, built so far into the design that it simply can't fail.

Really, is it even possible for a transfer bar lock revolver to fail and cause an AD? Unless that thing has been lifted into place by cocking it, and the hammer itself has been released by cocking it, you can take as hammer after it without setting off the primer. Even if you get dirt in it, since the hammer is locked, it can't be responsible if the pin is pushed.

A drop causing an AD in any modern firearm that is designed to prevent that exact problem is just so unlikely, that I'm willing to call it within reasonable doubt impossible. It could, and should never happen to a properly manufactured gun without a defect.

But we still have to accept that defects happen. that even the most seemingly outrageously impossible things are still possible. There are billions of user errors. Once in a while, there are going to be mechanical failures that look just like user error.

I'm actually pretty eager to see these things go into arbitration instead of court. Let a panel of experts examine the facts and the handgun and just write his claim off. A jury and lawyers don't give a hoot about any of the facts, it is not necessary to arrive at truth, just decide within reasonable doubt if the defendant must compensate the plaintiff.
 
lockstep

Seems a pretty simple matter to avoid the "lockstep" issue, by writing policy that is broad enough to allow some officer choice, but grounded in legally defensible theory.

As an example, my old agency limited pistol selection to the Sig P series in about 4 models. There was indeed a choice of calibers. 9mm, .40, and .45. There was enough latitude to empower officers to make their own choice and have confidence in it. There was enough latitude to allow for the assorted hand sizes in an agency of mixed personnel. A 5'5 female will not have the hand size of a 6'2 male, and cannot be expected to manipulate the firearm in the same manner.....but she is on your staff.

The agency is staying with one maker. There is a degree of commonality in parts, armorer training will cross from one model to another. The manual of arms for the pistols is the same. There is some interchangeability between holsters and mag carriers. My observation is that there will be a broad and nearly even mix of caliber choice, , with .40 peaking slightly above the other two, but enough of 9mm and .45 to create a reasonably broad base of use.

My experience and take is that there is resistance to this approach for several reasons. One, already discussed, is the civil aspect, as viewed by overly cautious administrators convinced that their task is to act as some type of solicitor, rather than enabling their officers. The other is that there is opposition to complicating the supply train by having to acquire 3 different calibers/loads for issue, and thus entail additional cost. And the third is that the need for different sets of duty gear (hosters/pouches) will add even more cost. Many of those opposed to the idea of enabling the officer have nothing to do with field operations.
 
And then we have the Hialeah Police Dept (FL) where the officers can carry 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP in a variety of semi auto pistols. Go figure.
 
ranger, that is a very good idea, and in the past, I think that several departments did similar things. You had a number of smith semiautos of varying configurations, DAO, SA/DA, etc, and the things were so similar that they were all allowed. Kept the things within a contract, provided a double stack nine, and provided enough consistency.

Back then, it was only nine, nothing else available.
 
Glocks are as drop safe as most other guns. Meaning unless there is a mechanical failure they will not fire from being dropped.

tipoc
 
I carry IWB at 1:00 PM. I will carry NO striker fired handgun without a manual safety in any other condition than condition 3. I will carry a round chambered IWB with a DA/SA or Manual Safety.
 
Something to keep in mind: Glock marketing maintains that 68% of law enforcement in the U.S. uses their pistols. This means that 68% of police depts. in the U.S. allow the use of Glock pistols but is not the same as saying that Glocks are the only pistols in use by those depts. It is the case that in many Glocks are one of several choices that are approved for carry. This is particularly the case in the largest departments.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top