Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

Arm,
I have no idea how experienced you are in investigating officer-involved shootings, but one very basic tenet established by those who are long ago is that the officer rarely will be a reliable "witness" as to how many rounds he fired.

This is well-known, has no bearing on credibility in terms of obfuscation or deception on his or her part.

If he or she fired once, twice, or a dozen times, the best you can realistically expect under the effects of tachypsychia is a recollection of firing, period.
If there was a reload involved along the way, that may stand out; if not, he or she will almost certainly not be reliable in terms of memory of exact number of rounds fired.

You might get more mileage out of trying to nail down how many rounds he habitually DID carry in the pistol.

We were using that "memory" facet over 30 years ago as firearms instructors in emphasizing the principle that IF YOU FIRE AT ALL- RELOAD AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY!

Reason being precisely that you will not remember how many times you fired, and if it becomes a protracted affair you may find yourself out in the open at some point with an unloaded gun, thinking mistakenly you only fired two or three.

This can also transfer to involved witnesses in the immediate vicinity.
One may have "heard" one shot, one may have "heard" two.

Denis
 
I'd also add that:

1. Gunshots are really loud. Often painfully loud.
2. Depending on the location of the shoot, echoes/reverberation can make it seem like more shots were fired than actually were.
3. Memory is inherently unreliable.
 
The sound thing is also affected by tachypsychia, often it's barely noticed.

One fine Spring morning I was standing at an in-set front residential door, under an overhang extension of the roof, with a section of brick wall close on my left, essentially something of an enclosed area as far as confining & echoing sound waves goes, when a Glock 17 four feet to my right ended the advance of a guy coming to the door inside with the same hatchet he'd used to threaten neighbors in his hand.

He actually connected with one officer's pistol in chopping at it with that hatchet, before the other officer at the door stopped him with one shot through the heart.

In that proximity & enclosed space, what shoulda been louder'nhell was a "pop" to my ears.
Quieter than a firecracker.
No ringing beyond what I'd already had for years, no lasting effects.

Things can happen fast, and your senses do not function normally when the brain shifts gears. :)

Denis
 
I am of the opinion with only one casing found on-scene and no projectiles recovered that the officer only fired once. And that's why in my own training and experience I am baffled by his surrendering a weapon with 16 rds when I would've expected 17 with one shot fired if carried 17 + 1. From spontaneous utterances made, in relation to not recalling how many shots discharged, we learned that he does not recall hearing the shots that night, can't remember how many shots fired (by him or bad guy) and that his hearing was impaired for a few days after the shooting - ringing in his ears.
Click to expand...
Bad guy firing on them?
 
Cops drew down on bad guy who refused commands to show hands while sitting behind the wheel. He was alone in the car. Non-police witnesses are giving varied testimony but from what we get he refused to show hands, refused to get out of the car. Suddenly it appeared he moved forward and to his right concealing much of his body as if reaching for something. He continued in this position as if searching for something that was on floorboard of the front passenger seat. He suddenly sat up and a shot (or shots depending on who you talk to) rang out. Through tinted driver's side window he was hit. (It was at 3:30 am and stopped after long but slow chase.) A fully loaded semi auto was found where he'd been reaching. During the chase it seems the gun drifted far forward and far to the right evidently out of reach and maybe not where he thought it'd be when reaching.
 
Last edited:
Oh--your previous wording made it sound like an exchange of gunfire occurred "can't remember how many shots fired (by him or bad guy)" in which case I'd think it would be no wonder that accounts would be blurred. I have a bad feeling this is all about "justified shooting" now that you've filled in a few more details. I'm taking myself out of this conversation and leave it to the real knowledgable people like shark bite and DPris.
 
Not at all difficult to determine which side of the window a shot was fired through, if only one was fired, and if it became a matter of establishing who did shoot.
Not at all difficult to determine if the suspect actually fired a gun.

Routinely, everybody involved (officers & suspect) should have been swabbed.

Otherwise, realizing the complete case can't be laid out here, it doesn't appear so far that there's anything going on beyond a routine investigation into an officer-involved shooting.

As such, in determining whether the shooting was justified or not, several factors come into play, including what's called the totality of circumstances, which leads into the officer's perceptions that caused him to believe he (or others in the immediate vicinity), were being threatened.

That includes the officer's experience, suspect behavior (long pursuit, even if a slow one), failure to comply after stopping, suspect demeanor, and what's referred to as "furtive movements" that may be consistent with reaching for a weapon.

Going by ONLY the statements so far, such shootings have been upheld, both internally and in court.
Even in cases where there turned out to be no weapon, or the object an officer believed was a weapon, wasn't.

The number of rounds fired would be a part of the investigation, but generally only a peripheral issue, unless there were other factors involved that made it more relevant.
Denis
 
You could contact the officer's department and see what he was taught to do. In court I would take that over internet advice any day.
Click to expand...

While the officer's training is relevant, just because he was taught to do something doesn't mean he did it. Ask the officer in question what he did. If he is thought to have carried 17+1, the fact that two fired bullets and one fired casing can't be found seems far less reasonable that a 16+1 carry senario where only one bullet is missing. I believe William of Ockham would be considering the 16+1 scenario more credible given our limited info at this time.
 
So 4 other officers have no idea whether or not one or two shots were fired?
Click to expand...
Although that would be enough to make me investigate thoroughly, it wouldn't surprise me greatly to find that there were differing accounts provided by the witnesses. I've seen a video in which a hunter shot twice (and actually scored two hits on two different animals) but thought he had fired only once until he actually watched the video.

As far as the noise being very loud, it is. The one time I was exposed to a firearm shot in an enclosed area without hearing protection, it was so loud that I was quite deaf for several minutes after the shot, my ears rang for hours and my hearing is still noticeably impaired years later. But I never "heard" the sound of the shot at all--the sound never even registered. I remember being slightly confused--realizing that a shot had been fired but not understanding why I hadn't heard the noise.
And that's why in my own training and experience I am baffled by his surrendering a weapon with 16 rds when I would've expected 17 with one shot fired if carried 17 + 1.
Click to expand...
Had he ever carried a Beretta 92/96 or is he very familiar/accustomed to that pistol? The Beretta manual actually recommends chambering a round from the magazine and not topping it off afterwards, stating that it is better for the magazine spring than topping off the magazine after chambering a round.

One other thing to consider is whether or not the department's policy involves frequently loading & unloading their duty firearms or if the officer was in the habit of frequently loading and unloading his duty firearm. If that is the case, it would seem more likely that an officer would have a tendency to chamber a round and not top off the mag since it would simplify a repetitive process.

Nothing you've said so far sounds implausible. Unless there's physical evidence or a credible witness account that contradicts the single shot fired scenario, I'd have no problem accepting it.
 
Speaking specifically to the original question... Everybody and every situation is different. I've cycled out mags and realized that I was carrying a round short in the past, I'm sure many others have also. I'll leave it to the judicial system to determine what actually happened, though.
 
Two points. I am currently retired from LE and no longer hold the post of agency firearms instructor.

In my case the agency MANDATED officers park their off duty guns and load up the issued pistol for duty daily. The arming process (written policy) required a loaded magazine (9mm, 15, 13 or 8 round capacity) being inserted, the weapon charged and the magazine NOT being topped off. When doffing after duty the weapon would be cleared and the chambered round reinserted in the magazine (supposedly lower down the stack per policy), the pistol stored in the gun locker and the individual officers choice of off duty piece retrieved and carried.

Agency policy required loaded chamber for duty but many of the guys I trained admitted to carrying off duty with an empty chamber. Facts and logic have bearing on why some people carry chamber empty. Two reasons often mentioned are safety when stored at home and as an officer survival issue in case a pistol is taken away. I disagree with that mindset but can understand it.

I as a matter of routine carry load a full magazine and charge the piece and I do not swap or top off the magazine. Been doing it for years. With 17 or 18 or 19 rounds of 9mm on board some of these modern wonder nines I do not see the need to top off for that one extra round.

There are cases where maximum capacity over time have caused magazine failures or un reliability. There is known data that after charging a pistol from the magazine the next in line cartridge has been staged" slightly ahead in the magazine that could (in theory) improve reliability of the next shot. In addition topping off defeats the easier administrative handling of the weapon.

One thing is certain...nothing is certain when it comes to training vs. practices of individuals.
 
Not surprisingly you all are giving me great insight into the various carry habits re semi autos; on-duty and off; in violation of policy or not. And that's why I came here to what I expected would be the experts - if not experts, certainly proficient. Again, I am not a Glock guy. So, I just didn't know if there's something about the Glock 17 - any peculiarity or experience or any tendencies - that conventional wisdom dictates the sidearm wisely (safely?) should be carried or not carried in a recommended manner. Regardless of policy mandates or manufacturer recommendations. And in relation to this, is there some wisdom on best use of the magazine viz full capacity vs off by one.
 
Some years ago a prolific gun writer and veteran, Chuck Taylor, was conducting an extended durability test on the original Glock 17 model. He had fired in excess of 100,000 rounds over a period of years during the test. One of the points he made during several articles he wrote documenting the project was the failure of the 17 round magazine after extended use. He wrote later that after he simply stopped loading the G17 magazines to capacity and instead limited them to 15 rounds he had no more magazine issues.

Knowing the G17 magazine when fully loaded is crammed in right tight, I believe downloading the magazine makes sense to 16 or 15 rounds. Having an extra round in the magazine might well be a fight changer but I agree with Sequins, an extra magazine would be a better choice.
 
This makes perfect sense. Now, a final (I think?) question: In relation to the 9mm spent shell casing found on-scene that was ejected from the officer's 9mm Glock 17 (tool marks from extractor and striker confirm this), hypothetically, if the manufacturer of that 9mm cartridge casing found on-scene was made by Hornady, should I expect all the other rounds to be of the same make? (While the lab report is very clear on these items, they have not yet released the actual evidence and the evidence receipt only has a cartridge count and no mention of make of cartridges surrendered.)
 
armedleoThis makes perfect sense. Now, a final (I think?) question: In relation to the 9mm spent shell casing found on-scene that was ejected from the officer's 9mm Glock 17 (tool marks from extractor and striker confirm this), hypothetically, if the manufacturer of that 9mm cartridge casing found on-scene was made by Hornady, should I expect all the other rounds to be of the same make? (While the lab report is very clear on these items, they have not yet released the actual evidence and the evidence receipt only has a cartridge count and no mention of make of cartridges surrendered.)
Click to expand...
Wait...WHAT?
You have lab reports yet no evidence has been released? :rolleyes:

Serious question.......are you really a law enforcement officer investigating this shooting?
Your questions lead one to believe youve never investigated anything nor received any training in the most basic investigative techniques.

If you are officially connected to the case you should stop posting.
 
Regardless of my involvement or connection to the case, whether or not its a hypothetical case, and personal attacks aside, I thought that was a fairly straightforward question? If you can't answer it just ignore my posts. But thank you for your interest.
 
This thread keeps getting stranger and stranger.

I am now convinced this is at most a family member of the suspect, on a fishing expedition.

To not have a basic understanding of duty ammo issuance, tells me the OP is NOT a LEO investigating this event. To further refuse to answer a straight forward question about his status nails it...at least for me.

I attempted to give the benefit of the doubt and provide some basic knowledge... at this point im OUT
 
Re the two primary issues you ask:

Great & impassioned arguments typically result over the one about mag springs shortening.

While most can agree that the springs weaken from repeated CYCLING, it gets fairly heated over whether or not they can shorten/weaken by merely sitting under full compression for long periods of time.

The usual example is Colt .45 ACP mags left fully loaded since WWII that are shot as found & function perfectly.

In the case of specifically the Glock 17, I gave you my first-hand experiences.
They did shorten, the department armorer replaced them regularly when he encountered them during annual inspections.

That does not mean EACH & EVERY MAG had its springs replaced EACH & EVERY YEAR.
It means that, besides the period line-up pistol inspections conducted by patrol sergeants, each year each Glock carried (private purchase or department issue) had to be taken in for a complete tear down inspection by the armorer.
When he found a mag spring that had shortened too far in his estimation, he replaced it.

Known issue there, I saw it, I can't say I've ever used a WWII Colt mag, but I CAN say what I've said about direct experience with Glock 17 mags.
Most of these mags were low-cycled units; in other words that shortening did not occur from high-volume use. Most were never used on the officers' own time, only at quarterly qualifications, because most were not gun people.
Most did not rotate mags.
Most kept only the mags they were issued, and most just kept the same mags fully compressed for years, until or unless there was a failure or an armorer replacement.

The suggestion that the mag springs weakened from repeated cyclings simply did not apply.

As far as how it "should" be carried goes, that's open to debate.
The question about how many rounds may have been fired by one officer is simplified by a department policy requiring full-up loading.
But- you risk the spring weakening there.

In my case, once I started loading down by one round, I never encountered another mag failure.
That, or loading down by two rounds, can be helpful in extending spring life and improving pistol reliability.

Before we get posts using other pistols & brands as examples & posts saying they've never had a problem with personal guns used recreationally for many years, I'll emphasize that here we're talking about Glock pistols that sit in holsters & Glock mags that sit in pouches for YEARS at a time, with infrequent use or attention.

Were I to carry a 17 again, and I still have two, it'd be loaded down by two and the mags would be rotated.

May be difficult to go this route with a PD; they'll typically expect full-up loading, and may not want to spend the money for additional mags for each officer.

One other approach that a PD might be more likely to use would be full load-up and full mag spring replacement every four or five years.
Cheaper than issuing extra mags, should keep the mags functional longer.

The Glocks are generally quite reliable.
The mag springs don't shorten overnight.
They CAN BE the biggest weakness to that particular pistol, over a period of time spent fully compressed.
Again- this is a limited-scope issue.

What brand should you expect to find in the mag?
Presumably should be the same, and whatever was issued.

Don't know the size of the PD involved, the experience level of the officer, whether the PD issued duty ammo, whether the officer was required to buy his own, or whether he decided to substitute "better" rounds than the PD issued.
Too many variables.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top