Glock Safe Action Unsafe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
In a properly operating Glock, the following would keep it from firing when dropped.

The trigger bar is in positive engagement with the firing pin lug, preventing the firing pin from moving forward to contact the primer.

The ramp safety prevents the trigger bar from moving downward out of engagement with the firing pin lug until the trigger bar is moved backwards behind the ramp safety. And that can't happen because the trigger safety prevents the trigger (and trigger bar) from moving backwards unless the trigger is pressed.

If the firing pin lug or the trigger bar or the ramp safety were to fail and the firing pin moved forward, the firing pin safety would block the firing pin from reaching the primer unless the trigger was pulled to the rear.

What could cause the gun to discharge when dropped?

If the trigger safety were to fail, and the gun landed in such a way as to pull the trigger/trigger bar assembly backwards from the impact force, the gun would likely fire. I've run the numbers and they indicated that a fall from 4 feet, landing on a hard surface muzzle up would generate enough force to cause a discharge in a Glock with a non-functional trigger safety. The bullet would go more or less straight up in that kind of a scenario. A discharge resulting from a drop of less than 2 feet with the bullet going off to the side (as in the story about the Glock 19) instead of straight up is not realistic even with a broken/failed/defective trigger safety.

Barring a failure of the trigger safety, it would take BOTH of the following.

1. Failure of the ramp safety and/or trigger bar and/or firing pin lug.

AND

2. Failure of the firing pin safety.

In other words, as long as the trigger safety is working (which can be very easily verified), at least two other parts of the gun would have to fail/break/be defective/be improperly modified before the gun could discharge without the trigger being pulled.

Does that mean that Glocks are amazing or unusual or super-safe compared to other guns when it comes to drop safety? No, I'm just providing the details of the Glock safety system because the question came up. In reality, most modern firearms have safety systems designed to prevent discharges as a result of the gun being dropped.

What I'm saying is that when someone tells you that any modern firearm in good condition fired as the result of being dropped, you're justified in being pretty skeptical about the story.
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...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If your neighbor tells you that he wasn't paying attention and hit your mailbox with his car, you can probably take his statement at face value. On the other hand, if he tells you that his car started itself in the middle of the night and ran over your mailbox without anyone driving it, you should ask for proof rather than take the statement at face value.

I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and guess that this person who claims to have dropped a pistol from 18" and had it discharge:

1. Never made any legal claim against the manufacturer for selling him a defective pistol which endangered his life and the life of any other residents in the house or nearby houses, and that caused damage to his safe, wall and probably his hearing.

2. Never had a gunsmith, armorer or independent testing lab examine the gun for defects that might support a legal claim against the manufacturer or that might allow correction of any dangerous conditions or replacement of damaged/defective parts.

3. Never, in fact, did anything at all other than perhaps tell a few people a story to explain the hole in the wall and the safe.
 
Assuming arguendo the safety system in place failed - and from what I am reading more than one safety component would have to fail for the gun to discharge- and the gun discharged a round when simply dropped (and trigger unmolested), that would mean this misfire can be replicated. While I don't suggest such replication by a gun owner, I would think that without any mechanical intervention, a gun smith or other expert could replicate the event.

If you were Glock, wouldn't you want to see this happen to learn why?
 
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...

You're a certified Glock armorer and saw an unmodified Glock 19 discharge after falling 1.5 feet and you weren't the least bit curious what happened to cause the discharge?

As JohnKSa outlined, that's a pretty amazing chain of failures that would be necessary to get that result. Based on your several HST posts, you seem like a curious guy - at least in those threads. What happened here?
 
Assuming arguendo the safety system in place failed - and from what I am reading more than one safety component would have to fail for the gun to discharge- and the gun discharged a round when simply dropped (and trigger unmolested), that would mean this misfire can be replicated. While I don't suggest such replication by a gun owner, I would think that without any mechanical intervention, a gun smith or other expert could replicate the event.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need to use live ammo at all. Put in a new snap cap and replicate the situation as best as possible. If the striker releases then you know it may well have discharged a round. You could also examine the hit on the snap cap, compare it to a hit on another snap cap from an intentional trigger pull, and gauge the force of the impact. It could be done safely, albeit some scratching of the pistol.
 
A little off topic, but was there not a time when one of the top gun manufacturers (SIG maybe?) issued to police in Europe a pistol that the armorer could examine and determine whether or not the gun had been dropped? I forget how they did it or how they could tell.
 
Snap caps are NOT dummy rounds. While they will often serve as such, they are NOT 100% reliable for use in troubleshooting problems. They are NOT EXACTLY the same "size" as some rounds, AND are not close to the same weight. It is POSSIBLE for a snap cap to "work" and a live round not to.

I saw this, admittedly rare situation myself, in fact I discovered it for a friend of mine, who until then, had no idea his gun HAD a problem.

The gun was new (he had had it 6months, taken it to the range twice, fired a couple mags each time, without incident. When he showed it to me, I noticed something looked ...odd. I thought it had the wrong ejector. Turned out, I was right!

The gun was a 1911, a gun I know well from my time in the service, and from personal ownership. It was a "new" 1911, not a 1911A1. When I looked at it, it seemed to me that the ejector was longer than the standard GI part. We did some tests. A SNAP CAP worked perfectly. A round of .45ACP 230gr ball ammo jammed when you tried to eject the loaded round! A JHP worked fine, ejected the loaded round normally.

My friend had never noticed the problem, as he had, up to that point, never tried to eject a loaded round. Each time he had shot the gun, he shot it empty, then reloaded it, and shot it empty again. No issues there. But when we tried to eject a loaded ball round it hung up, EVERY TIME. The snap cap did NOT show the problem, and while dimensionally almost identical to ball ammo, the difference in weight was apparently enough that it didn't jam.

The gun went back to the maker, who said, yes, we are VERY sorry, it was the wrong part, that never should have happened, etc. Took a week, plus shipping time, gun came back fixed, and all cost, including shipping was on their dime. SO, it CAN Happen, if you use snap caps for function testing, be aware that you might get a "false" result, depending on the exact situation.

Guns can do some weird things, sometimes. BROKEN guns can do even weirder things.

Saw a Walther, (the Super model) that was broken, it FIRED when the safety was put ON!!! BUT, ONLY when the gun was held in the normal upright postion WHEN the safety was applied. My friend who had it (same friend, if there's a lemon out there, it WILL find him! ;)) CARRIED the gun for 6 months, NEVER knew it had a problem, until he let a friend shoot it at the range. The shooter wanted to try the DA pull, and when he applied the safety (to drop the hammer for a DA pull) the gun fired! EEK!!:eek::eek:

Tested it again, same results. When he put the safety on, the gun would fire. When the owner put the safety on, it did NOT fire!!!

The only difference??? The owner has smallish hands, and every time he put the safety ON, he canted the pistol to the side (to reach the safety). The shooter, who had larger hands, did not do that, held the pistol in its normal upright position, and when the safety was put ON with the gun held upright, it fired!

The gunsmith was amazed. He had never seen anything quite like it. The gun was broken, but when held just the right way, the broken parts still lined up and functioned. When held any other way, they did not function, and the gun would fire when the safety was put ON. Guns can do some pretty weird things.

Since, mechanically, the GLock should NOT have fired when dropped, there are only two possible explanations. One, that the trigger was pulled, by someone, or something, without the people knowing it, OR some freak combination of mechanical factors allowed for the firing.

Some things SEEM impossible, until they actually happen. Never say "never".
 
Yes and no. The SIG P6 had a hammer that would deform if the pistol was dropped on the hammer, the idea being such a pistol should be examined after the fact to make sure the hammer/sear interaction had not been damaged. If the pistol wasn't dropped on the hammer, however, there was no such check. On a striker fired pistol you don't have a hammer to check.

The reality is most current production designs place a lot of faith in either firing pin blocks or striker blocks. That said I've never actually seen a primary source recollection of such a safety failing, assuming a well maintained pistol. That's a pretty big caveat however, as rust, debris, or even a sticky grease could potentially keep such a block held down after an initial depression, and then a subsequent block could result in a discharge on a pistol that was neglected.

As many have noted the striker on a Glock, unlike some other pistols, is not fully cocked. The idea is that even if the striker block did fail the striker spring would not be compressed enough to actually hit the primer hard enough to detonate the primer. I remember a thread in the past though where some folks claimed that was untrue.
 
Snap caps are NOT dummy rounds. While they will often serve as such, they are NOT 100% reliable for use in troubleshooting problems. They are NOT EXACTLY the same "size" as some rounds, AND are not close to the same weight. It is POSSIBLE for a snap cap to "work" and a live round not to.
Click to expand...

While I agree, in the situation I mentioned it's only purpose it to record a primer hit. In that case I don't see it failing (really you could accomplish the same goal a number of ways). For reference I use Tipton snap caps and I eventually have to replace them because the spring loaded brass primer becomes so indented that it isn't really accomplishing anything anymore. I do admit it's not a perfect simulation, but if my options are a drop test with a pistol with a chambered live round or the same drop test with a snap cap, I think I'll take the potentially reduced realism over potentially discharging a round.
 
44 AMP said:
The lawsuit is going to be a loser, based on the FACTS, but might win based on the jury's FEELINGS.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the bean counters encourage settlement if it will probably be cheaper than litigating a case to the end even if it can likely be won. I always wonder though, how many additional cases these extortion type lawsuits spawn when they are settled. Settling a particular lawsuit may save money for that case but end up costing far more money in the long run if you take into account similar frivolous lawsuits that it encourages in the future...
 
I believe that a settlement is almost always going to be preferable to a trial.

If a company can settle for $x dollars and thus pay a fraction of the amount a judgement may be, they have an incentive.

A settlement is even more important legally, since it leaves the company with "neutral feedback" so to speak.

This settlement could be put on paper with the wording

"complainant performed an idiotic act, caused himself personal injury, filed frivolous suit, and defendant chose to pay complainant out of the goodness of their hearts. Complainant proved no responsibility on part of defendant and defendant denies any responsibility."

Losing a lawsuit is the worst thing that can happen to a company, look at the tobacco industry. It puts a precedent of fault into the future legal situations.

A settlement doesn't normally touch on either fault or guilt.

An Alford plea in criminal law is similar. With an Alford plea, a person who is being prosecuted can examine the rock solid case against him. He has a choice to go to trial and be found guilty. He can plead down to lower charges and plead guilty. In either case he is found to be guilty of whatever crime he was on trial for.

An Alford plea allows him to serve a sentence without admitting guilt or conviction. For example, a person holding the gun with the blood on his hands but still not clearly guilty, for example rock solid alibi, trace evidence, other exculpatory evidence leaves the prosecutors to believe that the case will be compromised, can offer the plea.

The court will offer a sentence that is acceptable to the defendant. the defendant must choose whether the smart thing is to accept a lighter sentence than a guilty verdict will return, and to walk away from his sentence without being found guilty by the jury.

Other aspects of this plea are obviously more complicated, as are settlements in law suits.
 
If you were Glock, wouldn't you want to see this happen to learn why?
Click to expand...
It's a sure bet that Glock would be eager to examine the gun, or to have an independent laboratory examine the gun.

It's almost as sure a bet that someone telling a story about a Glock (or any other modern firearm) in proper working order discharging after being dropped 1.5 feet will not be eager to have the manufacturer or an independent lab examine the gun.
While I don't suggest such replication by a gun owner, I would think that without any mechanical intervention, a gun smith or other expert could replicate the event.
Click to expand...
A qualified armorer or gunsmith should be able to examine a gun which actually fires from being dropped and determine the problem without having to drop the gun to replicate the issue.
 
A qualified armorer or gunsmith should be able to examine a gun which actually fires from being dropped and determine the problem without having to drop the gun to replicate the issue.
Click to expand...

That is a compelling statement. If a Glock fired because of being dropped from 18" or 18' determining why should be fairly easy. Unless something is broken, defective, or modified to allow this to happen then the trigger had to be pressed. Is there another valid explanation?
 
Firing pin blocks exist for a reason. I know people prefer the triggers on Series 70 but Series 80 has some changes for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm gonna attach the section of the Ca. Penal Code that describes the states methods for drop testing. It's short. In order for new guns to make the roster they must pass the test. Glocks routinely pass as do 1911s.

The test is used for both revolvers and semis.

3 separate guns are used in the tests.A case with a primer in it but no bullet is loaded.

A drop test fixture is used.

From a height of 1 meter plus 1 cm (39.4") measuring from the lowest portion of the gun, the guns are dropped onto a stable concrete slab.

The weapon shall be dropped from a fixture and not from the hand. The weapon shall be dropped in the condition that it would be in if it were dropped from a hand (cocked with no manual safety applied). If the design of a pistol is such that upon leaving the hand a “safety” is automatically applied by the pistol, this feature shall not be defeated. An approved drop fixture is a short piece of string with the weapon attached at one end and the other end held in an air vise until the drop is initiated.
Click to expand...

It goes on:

The following six drops shall be performed:

(a)Normal firing position with barrel horizontal.

(b)Upside down with barrel horizontal.

(c)On grip with barrel vertical.

(d)On muzzle with barrel vertical.

(e)On either side with barrel horizontal.

(f)If there is an exposed hammer or striker, on the rearmost point of that device, otherwise on the rearmost point of the weapon.

The primer shall be examined for indentations after each drop. If indentations are present, a fresh primed case shall be used for the next drop.

The handgun shall pass this test if each of the three test guns does not fire the primer.
Click to expand...

http://www.oclaw.org/research/code/ca/PEN/12128./content.html#.V9l1e5grLIU

Glocks routinely pass. You can draw your own conclusions.

tipoc
 
independent labs
California’s handgun firing requirement is a test in which the manufacturer provides three unmodified handguns, of the make and model for which certification is sought, to an independent testing laboratory certified by the Attorney General.4 The laboratory must fire 600 rounds of certain ammunition from each gun, stopping at specified intervals.5 A handgun model passes the test if each of the three test guns:

• Fires the first 20 rounds without a malfunction that is not due to ammunition that fails to detonate;6 and

• Fires the full 600 rounds with no more than six malfunctions that are not due to ammunition that fails to detonate, and without any crack or breakage of an operating part of the handgun that increases the risk of injury to the user.7

Following the handgun firing requirements, the same certified independent testing laboratory must subject the same three handguns to a series of six drop tests each, with a primed case (no powder or projectile) inserted into the chamber.8 The handgun model passes this test if each of the three test guns does not fire the primer.9
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top