Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

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?
Click to expand...

This is something that I don't know but you must find out.
I would expect the department to specify the ammunition to be used, so one Hornady, all Hornady. But since your department does not specify the gun to be carried, they might not monitor ammunition closely.

Me? I usually stick to the same brand and load, but right now I have a gun loaded with a Winchester hollowpoint in the chamber and Asym roundnose in the magazine because I have not yet shot it enough to be confident in its feeding of hollowpoints.
 
Once again just curious:

Are you a writer working on a story?

That's okay, quite a few writers have come by and asked for advice so their gun stories don't get them hoots of derision from the gun folk.
 
Yep- Why wait, step right up & get your hoots done here.

I get derisional hootification all the time. :)
Denis
 
armedleo 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.
Click to expand...
Please answer the question.
 
Former police officer and investigative reporter. The officer is a personal friend who suspects evidence tampering and a move politically motivated to get him fired. He is under admin leave with pay indefinitely. He is a very vocal union member who has been challenging the validity of promotional exams, promotions, and expenditures made through asset sharing forfeiture funds.
 
If he's a personal friend & you're not a member of his PD, some of the questions you ask should be answerable by him, privately.

How he carried the pistol, why he carried it that way, what his department policy was regarding its load-up, what the ammunition was (private purchase or department issue, all the same brand, and so on), etc.
Denis
 
Thank you for your interest and patience. As a friend I have gotten permission to take on the story from my editor. As an I R I must do my job dispassionately and objectively. I have warned him also that he must never lie to me for it will surely be revealed and, with no choice now that we're moving on the story, I am obligated to report the facts: the good, the bad, the ugly. I told him more than once, if I ever find you've lied to me our communication must end. He challenged me to catch him in any lie; that he will be honest and open with me at all times. So far, from the SAO case file and what I've learned from you here who don't mind being asked questions by someone who admits ignorance and is unashamed to ask for help, he's telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
There is a caution here-
It's not particularly advisable for him to be speaking to a reporter about details in an ongoing investigation.
Or, for that reporter to be publishing them.

That implies no criticism of you, it's simply good legal advice for him.

If the incident was some time ago and/or if allegations are being made by the department against him, a very limited story MIGHT be useful in addressing those allegations.
MIGHT.

If recent, and the investigatory part is still very active, NOT a good idea to be publishing "his story" in any great detail at all.

Not knowing the nature or extent of how you plan to cover it, I'll just say you could easily end up doing far more harm than good.

None of this implies that he did anything wrong, just recognizing that ANYBODY (police or non) can have statements twisted out of context, and it's a good defensive legal principle to address only those issues that need to be addressed, and only WHEN they need to be addressed.
That generally means in court, and in response to issues raised by a prosecutor.

Denis
 
Quite right. The criminal case has been closed and now it has been referred to IA. I must (per editor) hold the story until the IA is completed and, regardless of findings, I must report on their conclusions. He tells me that despite political pressure the IA man is a good man who will not manipulate evidence nor testimony nor the facts. Neither will I. Friend or no. Again, hopefully my inquiries here will not be off-putting or considered suspect or some such. I was always taught that there's no such thing as a stupid question. And again thank you for sharing your knowledge and insight and experience. Just so you know, I carried a P226 on the job; my former dept recently went to the M&Ps. He is with another agency and they can carry what they want from 9mm up. They buy their own ammo.
 
I also know that during an investigation, police or military , ones memory does have a tendency to get a bit murky when asked questions under oath. It's best to forget than remember incorrectly. :cool: BTW, the theory that all ammo from the same maker and batch number are exactly the same has been proved very , very wrong. There have already been a couple of convictions that have been over turned and as a rule it is no longer ( or shouldn't be ) offered into evidence. It can be proved that a casing came from the same gun, but not the same batch of ammo.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
That would be a reasonable expectation. HOWEVER, there's nothing that constrains the expectation to be correct. Although it's not common for people mix ammunition in a magazine, it is not unheard of. Some people believe it makes sense to put a "special" round of some sort in the chamber and different rounds in the mag. You can also find people who advocate alternating two different kinds of rounds or putting some "special" rounds in the bottom of the magazine where they can be used for the last few shots in an encounter (or at least the last few shots from that magazine).

None of those things are generally recommended by professionals or trainers, but that doesn't keep some people from doing it.

If the department in question doesn't issue ammo or mandate the use of a particular type of ammunition, that would, in my opinion, increase the chances of encountering a mix of ammunition in the gun.
And in relation to this, is there some wisdom on best use of the magazine viz full capacity vs off by one.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in a previous post, at least one gunmaker, (Beretta) puts a "half-hearted" recommendation in an owners manual against topping off the mag after chambering a round. I say "half-hearted" because they don't actually forbid the practice and, in fact, actually explain how to do it. They just make a comment along the lines that it's better not to do it because leaving the mag down by one while it's in the gun puts less stress on the magazine spring.

I don't typically recommend that people underload magazines as a matter of course, but I do generally advise that people should check the function of their weapon (and magazines) on a regular basis and take remedial action should they encounter issues. If it appears that magazine springs are wearing out prematurely then there is evidence that underloading the magazines by a round or two can help prevent that problem in the future.

I pulled out a Glock manual and read through the section entitled "Loading and Firing". The procedure for loading the gun does NOT include steps for topping off the magazine. A person, equipped with a Glock 17, who followed the loading instructions directly from the manual without adding any steps would end up with 17 rounds in the gun--16 in the mag and one in the chamber.

There is nothing in the Glock manual that recommends against topping off, but there's also nothing that explains how to do it. It's never mentioned at all.
 
This is as I expected and explains perfectly well a 16 + 1 scenario instead of 17 + 1. As to varying makes of ammo and variations like +P, is there any increased likelihood of causing a malfunction by alternating ammo? Are some makes more prone to malfunction because of this? Do instructors speak to this? Advise against it?
 
since you said they buy their own ammo, there is no telling what's in his magazine. he couold have bought Hornaday X last time, shot 40 rounds of it and couldn't find X on the shelf again, so bought Hornaday Y. i use only hornaday XTP bullets in my carry guns, but the weights can vary from time to time. sometimes they get mixed and i can't tell the difference, or sometimes i am just out of my preferred weight so may have some 115's mixed with my 125's. hard to say what his buying and organization habits are.
 
It's ONE explanation for why the gun could have been loaded with only 17 rounds. There are many others that are reasonable and a lot have been provided on this thread.

I have seen at least two recommendations from reasonably reliable sources against mixing ammo in a magazine. On at least one occasion it was provided with the rationale that it can cause reliability problems. However, it's difficult to find compelling evidence that mixing ammo in a magazine will have a negative effect on reliability and it's not easy to construct a logical argument that conclusively demonstrates, or explains why, it would cause a problem.

I've never heard, nor can I think of any reason, that one make of firearm might be more or less prone to malfunctioning as a result of mixing ammunition in the magazine. Indeed, it's difficult to come up with solid proof that any of them will malfunction as the result of the practice.

It's more of a "why take the chance" issue. Add to that the fact that most premium expanding ammunition (barring the boutique/specialty/"magic" ammunition) performs pretty similarly and it's hard to justify doing something that MIGHT cause problems when it's very difficult to demonstrate that it's going to provide any practical benefit.

In my opinion, the best reason for not mixing ammunition is that it precludes having to explain to a jury all the details about what each round was intended to do. e.g. "This one is to wound but should less likely to kill, the next two are supposed to be good for knock-down power, the next ones are for maximum penetration in case they need to blow through a barrier or break a bone..." and so forth and so on. It's not really the kind of thing that's going to endear a defendant to the soccer-moms and yuppie dads sitting on a jury. It's much nicer to be able to say something like: "I loaded my gun with what <<insert LE organization>> carries in their guns. They chose it based on their assessment of what is likely to be most effective and because they have more/better resources for characterizing/researching ammunition than I do, I followed their lead."

Skizzums has an excellent point. Ammunition shortages have been common over the past 7 years or so and the mixed ammo could very likely be the result of not being able to find his preferred carry ammo at his local gun shop.
 
Generally speaking, there SHOULD not be an increased likelihood of inducing a malfunction by alternating different types of ammunition in the magazine.

It's just not the great idea that some think it is.
Depending on whether or not a given pistol tolerates that alternating ammo well or not, there COULD be a possibility of increased malfunction odds.

Not advised by most professionals, for the reasons John mentions. It can cloud the issues in a subsequent investigation & create a side-show that a jury may have difficulty understanding.

Any PD worth its salt will prohibit such a mix in duty or off-duty guns, even if officers have to buy their own ammunition.

Is this a 5-man department somewhere?
Denis
 
I know I said I would be outa here on this one--but I'm wondering if anyone else is not nagged by the same things I am. Let me be clear--I'm simply a shooting enthusiast knucklhead with no law enforcement experience or knowledge of law in general in cases like this, so what I say it's just pure conjecture based on what armedleo has said.

The focus of the thread seems to me keeps coming back to the issue of accountability of rounds fired despite the fact that new aspects of the shooting have been progressively introduced--as opposed to a complete background accounting of the incident at the outset of the conversation.

Despite mentioning that armedleo has a friend involved who has been cleared from criminal culpability--I can't help but think there is something very serious going on here if there is a notion "they had it out for my friend" as is stated.

The original statement "the projectile was never found" along with what seems to me a preoccupation with cartridges fired and the case/ammo type matching consistently I assume is at least an implied possibility from armedleo that tampering with evidence on the scene may have happened to try to implicate armedleo's friend in some way?? I assume this was a near point-blank shooting of the suspect into a vehicle--I don't see how otherwise they could accurately describe what the suspect was doing within the vehicle.

Also odd to me is at no time is it mentioned whether or not the suspect was injured/deceased as a result of the encounter.

I mean this as no disrespect to armedleo (really a compliment) but despite your statements of seeming ignorance and seeking practical advice--my gut tells me just the opposite--that you are in fact quite skillful in getting to what you want by leading with " bits and pieces" of info.

I respect anyone who seeks to uphold justice.
 
We're not getting the full story, and we shouldn't be.
Not while an IA investigation's still running.
Denis
 
We're not getting the full story, and we shouldn't be.
Not while an IA investigation's still running.
Denis
Click to expand...
Understood--but in that case it seems to me like an awful lot has been already said--whether or not "all at once" or "piece by piece."
 
Yes, Stag, you are actually spot on regarding my training and experience. But despite impatient know-it-alls (pleasantly uncommon here as I suspected), one thing I know for sure is I don't know everything and brainstorming is the key to solving cases. What better place than here. Just because I rec'd a certain kind of training or experience doesn't mean that's the only way to do or look at things.

And I apologize to any that think I've been deceptive or cagy. I must be careful and I'd like to walk this thing through with you as I've come to learn the case myself. Regardless, my questions have all been honest and sincere. Even ones that seem outlandish or simple-minded. All have a purpose.

I am not a Glock guy and know nothing about them but I knew I'd be able to find the real experts right here. I am a Sig guy. I myself have also been involved in shootings, have been shot at, and was once struck by a bullet. The department I was with is well over 100 in a major metropolitan area. Mixed neighborhoods of wealth and race and language. And no one happy. Because no one is ever happy when the police are called. My buddy's agency is not quite as big but also over 100. And more suburban and not many shootings. And it is probably one of the last agencies that makes their officers buy their own weapons. I say "makes" but they do get a stipend for the purchase. But I was quite surprised myself to find this out. I've actually done work for this agency on a conflict of interest situation (IA) and never knew about the lack of uniformity in side arms.

And you were also 100% correct in that Denis and John were the ones to defer to. Denis knows I must remain anonymous and careful as to how many and what facts I can talk about. Regardless of the condition of the victim, etc., you have identified what I am already seeing may have occurred: evidence tampering. Although you have misinterpreted one thing. Perhaps I was not clear. No projectiles were recovered. And I misspoke: better said, no identifiable projectiles were recovered. Only one casing found on-scene. It appears the rounds that hit the perp caused perforating wounds, through and through. Oddly, they did not swab any one's hands. I would've despite the obvious. With one exception: the perp. And he hadn't recently fired a weapon and the weapon found was fully loaded: 18 + 1. He actually possessed more firepower than what any individual officer was carrying. Bullet fragments were recovered but NCV (no comparison value). The perp was shot more than once. My friend swears upon the lives of his children he fired only once. (I do believe him. But as you, and Denis, and John, know, I must prove it and let the facts tell the story.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top