Glock Safe Action Unsafe?

[armedleo]

I see that according to CA specs, one malfunction per every 100 rounds - or a 1% malfunction rate - is acceptable. That's fine. But is that a standard that is elsewhere established or recognized as some sort of norm?

 

[Skans]

Glocks have always been unsafe. They have no active safety. While a Glock won't ever go "bang" all on its own, trigger-dingus guns are prone accidental discharges when handled. I thought everyone knew this? Yes, glock-fan you know it too, may not want to admit it, but we all know this.

 

[tipoc]

In answer to armedleo, I don't know. Remember that the point of these tests is to certify that a new gun is "safe" for legal sale as a "new gun" in the state. That the design is not inherently flawed and will not fire if bumped, etc. They are not tests for durability or for l.e. purposes, etc. Also not tests of reliability for carry purposes.

tipoc

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I suggest the folks leave their trigger finger at home.

Then maybe we won't have this thread at home. I hear Israel has developed a snap on prosthetic finger. If attacked, you whip this out of your finger pouch, snap it on and then draw your unchambered Glock. Also, they have developed an airbag radar Glock. If dropped, an inflatable bag explodes from that little space behind the mag (you wondered what that was for). Only problem - it is powered by a lithium-ion battery and made by Taraka.

Maybe the guy who wants to carry an unloaded Black Powder revolver is correct?

 

[45_auto]

Guns have always been unsafe. Some guns, like revolvers, have no active safety. While a revolver won't ever go "bang" all on its own, any gun is prone accidental discharges when handled. I thought everyone knew this? Yes, gun-fan you know it too, may not want to admit it, but we all know this.

Fixed it for you.

 

[briandg]

Glenn, your suggestion to leave the trigger finger at home is a novel and ahead of its time approach to gun safety. I offer a commentary on it.

My ignoramus brother in law was working with a table saw that had a disabled blade guard. If you have used one, you will note that it puts your trigger finger into perfect position to wind up with a prosthetic. He wound up prepping himself for said prosthetic, and in fact, did leave his trigger finger at home in a pile of sawdust. He and his driver were almost four miles out when they remembered it, drove back home, put it into a cold glass of milk, and carried it back to the hospital.

Medicaid didn't cover experimental prosthetic implants so they just reattached it.

This resulted in two fully expected events.

Every time he put his finger up his nose, he smelled buttermilk. Smelling buttermilk fifty times a day left him depressed. Two years later, he accidentally fired a round of .22 lr into the mirror while practicing suicide attempts. Nobody ever explained to him that shooting the guy in the mirror isn't likely to do any good.

 

[briandg]

It begs the question, we have established that no gun is safe when in imperfect hands. No car is safe in imperfect hands. Add in scissors, moldy meat, and mouthwash, and there is a conclusion that can be made. Nothing is safe in imperfect hands, and every hand is imperfect. Right now, for example, I've got a a few extra hairs on my right index finger because I burned some of them off on the left. That's really imperfect.

People can't be trusted with anything that they can put their hands on. We're like chimps that find a rubber banana. We'll do everything in the world with that rubber banana. I shudder to think of some of the things that the poor banana will be subjected to.

As has been said millions of times, and is now proven through logic, guns don't kill people, people give guns a reputation being dangerous because they are in themselves dangerous.

 

[TunnelRat]

People can't be trusted with anything that they can put their hands on.

Truth.

To put myself in the spotlight, I have had a negligent discharge. It was with a S&W 5903. That's a pistol that has a manual safety, a DA trigger pull, and a magazine disconnect. Pretty much all the safety features under the sun. How then did I manage that? I had taken the magazine with ammo out of my pistol and was doing dry fire practice. Instead of being smart and putting that magazine back in the safe, I left it on the desk. I put the magazine with the snap cap on the desk when I went to grab something else. I went back to the desk, picked up a magazine, chambered a round, and pressed the trigger. Bang. This was 100% on me. That is why I will always differentiate from a negligent and an accidental discharge.

Now here's the thing. Because I at least obeyed the rules of not pointing at anything I was not willing to destroy and knowing my backdrop no one was hurt other than my private property. This is why there isn't just one rule. In order for someone to be hurt you have to violate multiple rules simultaneously. That is what this officer did. The majority of cases of negligent discharges I have read have happened when the owner was under the assumption that the pistol was unloaded. He/she then deliberately pressed the trigger. In that situation a manual safety doesn't help you. A manual safety might help you if you grab for a falling pistol, which you shouldn't do, or some kind of sympathetic muscle contraction of the hand (Ayoob has some writings on this). While I have no doubt that this does happen, I'm willing to bet it is the minority when compared to those working under a false assumption. We as people are the weak link in this chain. That's why safety procedures need to be ingrained to the point of habit.

 

[tipoc]

Let me see...

1.Treat all guns as if they are loaded all the time.

2. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Clearly identify (see) your target and what's beyond it.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot.

Maybe I messed up the order but you can violate one of them and be OK but two or more and you're out a knee cap, or a nephew.

tipoc

 

[briandg]

That is why I will always differentiate from a negligent and an accidental discharge.

I have a tendency to say that there is no such thing as an accident. Almost anything that goes wrong can be somehow at the very core attributed to human error. I don't believe in "accidents"

Falling off of a ladder? how? accidental drowning? how?

Decades ago, a woman was jogging in utah, the edge of the trail that she was running on had a fifty yard drop. The trail was broken rock and dirt. To make it short, she slipped on a rock and slid over the edge, broke every bone from her pelvis to to her heels.

Accident? BS. What sort of idiot runs along a steep ridge, on rocks and dirt?

 

[TunnelRat]

To me the only "accidental" discharge would be the mechanical failing of internal safeties or the striker/hammer releasing when it shouldn't. The problem there is that for the vast majority of those cases the cause of the mechanical failure would likely be poor maintenance of said firearm. Still I leave the option for a mechanical failure, maybe bad tempering of metal that causes a failure, open just to cover that. But I agree true "accidents" are few and far between.

 

[briandg]

Even mechanical failure can still come from negligence on the part of a maker. Bad design or poor qc on parts. If a 1911 had a bad sear from factory, if it doubles you can call it an accidentonly if that flaw could have reasonably spotted during mfg.

We can use the word accident in the context of "act of God" and almost nothing else. Even then, why we're you playing golf during a thunderstorm?

We can say that a discharge is an accident if it wasn't preventable and clearly a very unintended flaw in the equipment, but any further consequences are totally the fault of the handler.

I'm really forgiving of errors. Denying the mistake by calling it an "accident" means that a person isn't taking personal responsibility.

There are people who I wouldn't share range space with because they are "an accident waiting to happen."

I would not hesitate to set up right next to most of the people who post here because they believe in and understand safety. I don't think that any of you have cut off a finger.

 

[armedleo]

Regardless of what you call them, these discussions concerning unintentional discharges are quite healthy for us all and act as a constant reminder that we must pay careful attention at all time when handling firearms.

"Familiarity breeds contempt." I believe this applies wholeheartedly to our every day use and handling of firearms and we become a little too cocksure, a little too complacent, and BANG! Sort of like the 30 year airplane mechanic that walks face first right into an idling propeller.

We must have an undying respect for these wonderful works of mechanical art and craftsmanship and means of protection. I like reading and re-reading those four cardinal rules. I wish I could have them tattooed on my forehead whenever I go to the range.

 

[JohnKSa]

apparently, the tests I read are BS, or misrepresented, or something. A 1911 can fire from about a meter.

That brings up a good point. The fact that a firearm is in current manufacture doesn't necessarily qualify the gun as a "modern firearm" if it is an old design which has not been updated to reflect modern firearm safety standards.

Most handguns without a firing pin safety can fire from being dropped muzzle down from a sufficient height, some of them even with a manual safety applied. The momentum developed by the firing pin in that situation can be enough to cause it to continue to move forward at impact, even against a restraining spring, and detonate the primer. Without something blocking/restraining the firing pin, a muzzle down impact on a hard surface from a high enough drop will result in a bang.

To put myself in the spotlight, I have had a negligent discharge. It was with a S&W 5903. That's a pistol that has a manual safety, a DA trigger pull, and a magazine disconnect. Pretty much all the safety features under the sun.

The most common cause of unintentional discharge is intentionally pulling the trigger on an "unloaded" gun. There's no safety mechanism that can save a person from that mistake.

That is why I will always differentiate from a negligent and an accidental discharge.

MOST unintentional discharges result from negligence, but ALL are accidental.

Unintentional, accidental and negligent are all words that have established definitions which means that there should be no need to rehash this over and over. These threads should be focused on learning lessons from the situation, not on discussions about the meanings of words whose meanings aren't in question.

Unintentional just means that something happened even though it wasn't intended to happen. It is the opposite of intentional. It carries no negative connotation. Accidental means the same thing--an incident which occurred without intent.

Negligent means that ordinary/proper care was not taken in the course of some activity. It has nothing to do with intent or lack of intent. It carries a connotation of guilt, culpability and liability. Negligence is ONLY about whether or not proper care was taken. Negligence can occur during intentional AND unintentional/accidental actions.

Discharges can be intentional or unintentional/accidental. They can be negligent or non-negligent. One can tell what kind they are by using the established definitions for the terms 'negligent' and 'unintentional'/'accidental' and comparing those definitions to the circumstances of the discharge.

An example of a non-negligent unintentional/accidental discharge would be if a part failed in a firearm under circumstances where there was no reasonable way to predict or prevent the failure. Not a common occurrence, to be sure, but it does happen.

 

[TunnelRat]

The most common cause of unintentional discharge is intentionally pulling the trigger on an "unloaded" gun. There's no safety mechanism that can save a person from that mistake.

Which I go on to state in that post and have said earlier in the thread.

These threads should be focused on learning lessons from the situation, not on discussions about the meanings of words whose meanings aren't in question.

I wasn't seeking a discussion, merely stating my own personal differentiation though it did evolve into such a discussion. Frankly I think we've already covered what could be learned.

An example of a non-negligent unintentional/accidental discharge would be if a part failed in a firearm under circumstances where there was no reasonable way to predict or prevent the failure. Not a common occurrence, to be sure, but it does happen.

Which I mention as well.

I do see your point that accidental/unintentional doesn't make any statement about negligence or the lack thereof and there are intersections of the terms so they're not mutually exclusive. I guess for me personally accidental carries the notion that it couldn't have been prevented. Your right that by definition that's not strictly true. It's a personal bias I guess I developed over years.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

I asked my wife about this case.

She said: "He doesn't need to sue Glock, he needs to sue his mama."

 

[Bongo Boy]

Jeeezus. No wonder we're fighting a losing battle.

 

[Bongo Boy]

That guy is a moron. The instructions say to clear the weapon first. Failure to follow the simplest of instructions. Stupid hurts.

Hmmm. Gotta agree. It's not an issue of being a retard. It's an issue of being a serious freeking retard. Jeeezus. What a freekin retard. Please take him out of the ecosystem. The 'sue McDonalds for hot coffee' suit makes about a 1000 times more sense than this one. Fact is, I can sue you for anything I please...suit doesn't have to make any sense whatsoever. That's the case, and that's what we have to deal with.

 

[K_Mac]

Bongo you really have a way with words. Your fondness for the word retard shows a lack of understanding of how offensive it is to thinking folks everywhere. If being dumb was cause for 'taking one from the ecosystem' many of us would not make the cut.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is nothing more to be said.

Lay off the rude stuff, folks.

Closed.