Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

I'm going to answer without reading the other responses so you can get the benefit of my thoughts with no other input. Then you decide if that's worthwhile or not. :D
if a live 9mm round is found can one identify with any reasonable certainty the gun from which it came? Are certain guns like, say a Glock 17 for instance, more inclined to leave markings on an unfired ejected round than say another sort of gun?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on it. It might be possible to look at scratch marks left by the extractor but I don't think that the chances are good. The best bets might be to see if there's any way to match up marks on the bullet nose with marks on the feedramp or to see if the marks made when the round slid along the feedlips of the magazine show up and can be matched.

My gut feel is that you might be able to prove it didn't come from a particular gun because something obviously didn't match but that it would be much harder to prove that it did come from a particular gun. In other words, the expert might say: I can tell this round didn't come from a Glock because the scratches on the round don't match the Glock magazine feedlips. But it would be very difficult, maybe impossible for him to prove that the round came from this particular Glock.

I think it would almost certainly be possible to tell if the round had ever been loaded into a magazine because doing so tends to leave scratches where the feedlips contact the round. That might give some insight into whether or not someone took a brand new round out of a box and dropped it on the ground.
If, "hypothetically," this live 9mm round came from my buddy's gun, that's good news, no? But, also, if it did come from his gun, well, why?
Click to expand...
People do funny things under high stress. He may have not heard the sound of the shot due to the normal effects of extreme stress and cycled his gun manually thinking he had experienced a malfunction. He may have decided to unload his gun after the shooting for some reason.
If he's lying it'll come out regardless as I've repeatedly warned.
Click to expand...
You need to be aware that he may not be telling the truth but may also not be lying. He may genuinely be unaware of firing a second shot and therefore is not being disingenuous when he states what he believes to be the truth. If you read back to one of my earlier posts you will see I mention a hunting incident that was captured on video where a shooter was certain that he only fired once. The video showed that he fired twice and actually hit two separate animals.
 
Yes, John, I do recall the hunting example and I, myself, being in a shootout and unable to recall how many shots I fired. In fact, I had done a tactical reload and didn't even realize it until I saw my magazine on the ground and one missing from my belt. Your insights and suggestions along with Denis' are invaluable.

My concern is sort coming to where you've already arrived. Maybe he's not lying but he's just dead wrong. Again, ego? And why lock yourself into a sworn statement by committing to something that really may be wrong. But if perjured testimony because refuted by physical evidence he's in trouble.
 
In no way whatsoever am I suggesting that he now alter his previous statement, or "admit" he was mistaken & say he did fire 2 shots.

Some of this conversation is verging on legal advice, WHICH I AM NOT GIVING.

My only suggestion there is to remain as honest in any statements & testimony all the way through as possible.

It is understandable to remain adamant that he only recalls firing one shot.
It is certainly very possible that he does only recall one shot.

It IS permissible to be mistaken!

Altering testimony under pressure, if such testimony was the truth to begin with, is inadvisable.

Making a public circus out of his situation is not a choice I'd make.
But, up to him.
Denis
 
I don't think your friend is a fool--naive, maybe--but not a fool. And there is a certain aspect to this that tells me he is probably not lying--by agreeing to let you hang his laundry publicly in the wind tells me he 1) Is likely desperate and feels no-one else will give him a fair shake; and 2) idealistically believes the truth will prevail and vindicate him. The key thing here--as Dennis says--what difference does the shot count make if it's already ruled a justified shoot? The implications of something else is going on here would dictate that your friend--at all costs--should be prepared to defend himself as best as he can, because if there is really something crooked going on behind the scenes they will come at him with everything they have--and friends have a way of becoming thin on the ground when that happens.
 
The polymer filled hollow point has been mentioned here. Would not a round like that "hypothetically" hitting a glass barrier create a tighter (cleaner) bullet hole when hitting glass? And shouldn't the polymer filler be found in the wound path of a subject? Found somewhere within where he was struck? Does it disintegrate from heat?
 
There are too many variables to conclusively say what bullet type would create what hole size.

A poly "filler" or expansion plug should leave traces, somewhere.
It is not vaporized by heat.

Re the wound channels: I find a bit of a...puzzlement in reconciling your statements.

You've said two wound paths, which the ME will not identify as entrance or exit.
You've said no projectiles recovered.
You've said bullet fragments were recovered on the passenger side.

That sounds like the bullets fragmented AND exited AS fragments.
If the bullets did not fragment in penetrating the glass, they should have (or pretty much must have) fragmented on impact with, or during travel through, tissue. Wound paths should show subsidiary small-fragment pathways through that tissue. Those are typically in an expanding or radial fan-shaped pattern.

They should start close to center of bullet mass and DIVERGE as they and the main bullet section or sections travel. At the very least, there should be secondary parallel paths through tissue.
They will not start out in a large fan shape on entry and CONVERGE to a small loose mass on exiting.

If you have one solid bullet mass creating an entrance hole on one side, you should have a more ragged exit hole on the other side, either caused by jagged edges of a mushroomed hollowpoint or by multiple smaller projectiles as they emerge and cut & stretch the skin outward.

It SHOULD, I'd think, be possible to pronounce which was entry & which was not.

I was also a bit puzzled by nothing but fragments being recovered on two perforations.
Typically a standard HP may break up to various degrees, but a jacket or core segment should be recoverable.

Was it frangible ammunition?
Denis
 
I am waiting to see the actual autopsy report. What I've read from docs released (some detectives' reports and crime scene personnel) a metal fragment fell from perp's collar at M E's office when clothes removed. I have no idea the size but also seen it described as a shard.

The M E's remarks are being cited by detectives. And it appears likely these wounds entered from perp's left side (neck and upper back) but there was little cavitation in either wound path. The M E is going on detectives' info of how perp was shot and the angle. There were four holes in the perp from two GSWs and they were through and through. Yes it appears some metal fragments were found along the wound paths. (Microscopic?) His body was xrayed and no slugs found inside of him. But the M E apparently remarked on the size of the entrance wounds as not being readily distinguishable from the exit wounds. Especially that clear through neck shot. The wound the came round the rib cage and exited below the right nipple was more star shaped and jagged and was declared an exit wound. No stippling or powder burns on perp.

This is purely speculative, but I am thinking someone(???) may have been carrying prohibited ammo.
 
But would not those polymer filled bullets create a finer, cleaner hole in the glass? What's been described is a hole much large than one would expect from a 9mm round? And the hole in the glass is rough and jagged. Several metal fragments were found along the center console and passenger front seat along with some spatter. But very little blood except perp was soaked in his own blood. It appears the perp was shot from about 10 - 15 feet from driver's side door.
 
You're going to have to get someone to shoot the rounds in question through the glass in question to figure out what happens and what the hole looks like. It's not the kind of information that's readily available.

I wouldn't expect a premium self-defense round (conventional, not the specialty/"magic" stuff) to fragment on a car side-window but, then again, I also wouldn't expect it to fragment in tissue. They are specifically designed not to fragment in tissue. Glass maybe, but still not likely.

If I were you, I'd demand to know the total weight of the bullet fragments found. That would provide some very useful information.

If it's really important to know what the bullet will do going through glass then you need to do some testing with that kind of ammunition and the same kind of glass. Be sure to duplicate any films/coating such as tinting.
 
A poly-tipped bullet may or may not create a "cleaner" hole in glass.

I doubt it would, and as John points out you'd need to do some comparison tests.
That'd involve several bullet types & several windows, of exactly that vehicle model & year, to be at all conclusive.
The larger the sampling, the more valid the results.

Temps, distance & bullet angles would have to be duplicated.
And, ideally you'd need to run two sets of identical testing- one set with one shot fired, a second set with two shots fired.
Denis
 
I reload 9mm and since you mentioned both Hornady case and polymer tip that leaves only one possibility for bullet type (assuming HP) as far as I know--and that would be their ftx critical defense ammo (the xtp in 9mm has no polymer AFAIK). The ftx polymer is typically harder than other polymers used in tipping or HP fill (I believe it was originally designed as more aerodynamic bullet for lever guns while precluding AD since they are loaded in column in a tubular mag) The intent of the ftx as far as I know is to improve aerodynamic efficiency while at the same time enhancing penetration and expansion properties--not what I would call a frangible type ammo. Assuming it retained good velocity (reasonable expectation at close range) I would guess this bullet type could be expected to remain largely intact while penetrating a barrier and the tissue. Bullet performance can be widely variable depending upon retained velocity in my experience--hard to say what happens to it after passing through glass (and I don't know how well an ftx does that since I've never loaded it in 9mm, I prefer xtp's and gold dots). I've never done any glass penetration testing. Also mentioned is metal shard separate from wounds--it's quite common for the bullet's jacket to separate from the core upon impact of some material--I sometimes get hit by jacket fragments or a fairly complete jacket ricocheting back from a target while target shooting (generally bulk grade ammo though)
 
Last edited:
First off, this goes without saying, thank you gentlemen for brainstorming this matter under less than ideal conditions - the main one being I myself do not possess all the facts. But from the questioning/investigative side I am possessed of things to look for and ask about that heretofore I would've been ignorant of. This has been a huge help. I suppose this is really how an internet forum is supposed to work.

The vehicle (I'll withhold make/model here) is of 2008 vintage. The passenger compartment (4 door) has been completely disassembled. And we are now attempting to determine that its been maintained as evidence and where. I mean now it looks like it'll be needed in the civil rights claim that's being filed.

Meantime we (well, my buddy at my recommendation thanks to you guys) is on the hunt to locate said vehicle (at least doors with windows) for testing purposes. But I'd like to get tints on there because I'm thinking that is a sort of barrier in and of itself, albeit flimsy?
 
I know I am a little late to this party, but I started reading it and got sucked in like a novel. A few things I would like to bring up the OP said he came here to find out how "Glocks are carried" I don't understand why it matters what brand it is weather it be Smith & Wesson, Springfield, H&K, FN or what ever else brand of hi capacity striker fired pistol. These are the logical choices, full mag + one in chamber, full mag empty chamber, mag loaded to capacity -1 with chamber either loaded or not. How many rounds the officer fired seems to be the million dollar question, but if he was justified to fire one round would it really matter if he fired two or even three rounds? I just don't see how if he took more than one shot that changes it from justified to unjustified.....:confused:
 
Welcome. Better late than never. Your question as to number of shots viz. justifiable homicide is the cause of much consternation. Which makes this thing all the more intriguing but suspicious. The SAO did an exhaustive investigation and determined the use of deadly force to have been justified. Case closed. Criminally. Now, for reasons that are his own, the chief of police is opening up his own I A investigation into the shooting. Which is his right. But his own command staff and the head of I A have implored him to leave it alone and rely upon the findings of the SAO and be done with it. This is a racially charged case as it is. No doubt, the chief's motives, known only to himself, may be self-aggrandizement at the expense of one of his officers. (My buddy.) The chief is well known and wants to be a media darling in his next life after police work. (My characterization.)

But here's the rub, and you've hit upon it. My buddy easily could've said I might have shot him twice; I did shoot him twice; I don't remember if I shot once or twice. For some reason, he is adamant that he shot the perp only once. Unshakeable on this. I've tried to convince him there's an easier road to take on this thing. Nope. Shot him once.

Regardless of good shoot, bad shoot - and the shoot is good here - lying is an unpardonable sin in police work. Perjury is a crime. If he is lying about shooting only once and he's proven to have given perjured testimony his law enforcement career is over. So, as with so many things in this life, the underlying "crime" is not so much the issue as is the cover up or, in this case the lie.

Oh, and about Glocks, I know nothing of them and had to learn whether or not there is something unique in the way they're carried in police work. When Glocks first came out and the officers were unused to light trigger viz. DAO revolvers there were a lot of ADs. They started carrying them with chamber empty. And was there anything about magazine issues that would cause an officer to load the mag in an other than full capacity mode. (Turns out its not unheard of to carry mag less one for spring life.) And that comes to round count.
 
Last edited:
For simplicity's sake I'll call my buddy, Joe.

So this morning I sat down with the SOPs concerning use of force, weapons, etc. Along with a separate manual re firearms training and qualifications.

Something caught my eye. There's a prohibition for carrying back-up guns. (As Denis already said, sometimes you just take a knowing risk and violate a policy for whatever your reasons are and deal with the consequences later.)

Let me address something regarding the round count viz. one shot vs. two. Not only is the killing justified - two shots or two hundred - but his gun when surrendered, IMHO, spoke to two rounds fired. I just naturally would've assumed Glock 17: 17 + 1; two shots and gun surrendered to crime scene tech with 16 rounds. Seems logical to me. Neat and tidy. But, of course, nothing ever is. So, instead we have Joe saying he shot once and yet turns in his weapon with 16 and not the expected 17 rounds remaining.

And we've worked out all the variables necessary to support Joe's position if true: I only shot once!

So, I called Joe and asked if he carries a back up gun. He assured me he does not. However, when I asked about the other officers on-scene and their custom re back up guns there was a long pause. Yes. Two of the older cops on-scene do carry and they carry 9mm subcompacts.

Now, of course, I am a little relieved but a little sore. Wouldn't this be something you might wanna mention? And now we go to, as the Italian's say, Omerta, the Sicilian word for Code of Silence. Now what?????
 
I figured you were implying something along this line right from the start. Did anyone mention get a really good lawyer for your friend yet?
 
The One Or Two Thing still baffles me.

Unless there are other facets to that, besides merely "lying" about one or two, that you're not passing on, I still do not see it as a legitimate issue, regarding Joe.

Has Joe or his attorney brought up the tachypsychia issue anywhere?
Does he understand it?
Is he even aware of it?

Is the departmental investigator aware?
Is the chief?

I'll reiterate: addressable, defensible.

I'll ask again: What possible reason could Joe have for lying about one shot or two? What benefit to claiming one if actually two? What harm would there have been in originally just say "I fired two rounds" if he DID fire two rounds.

This is such an easily-addressable issue, and one that even non-LE can assimilate in the form of what used to be called "Buck Fever" (one aspect of which is hunters getting so excited & focused ONLY on a deer that they lose track of rounds fired), that I can't see it being sustained against him.

Let Joe be adamant, stop talking to him about changing or "admitting" anything, if his perception & memory is that he fired one shot.
There are risks inherent in changing his statement at this point, if it was the truth initially.

He could still be fired, with such a change in testimony in itself being interpreted as perjury.
Such change could be used against him now, or later on if he is returned to duty.
His honesty could be tainted, justified or not, for the rest of his career.

Do your own parallel investigation, but I'd suggest at this point that you let the process run a little further, until the department forms specific conclusions and/or charges, if it comes to that, before you waste time scurrying around exploring too many esoteric possibilities.

On the window tests, one shot on one window may give you an idea, IF you shoot the same load through it under the same conditions as occurred that night, but it won't be conclusive.
Comps with other bullets would be needed.

You are apparently saying Joe was carrying poly-tipped ammunition?

If you think it through, the polymer "plug" is there to enhance expansion.
It does so by being driven back into the nose cavity on impact.
That logically means the polymer MUST BE INTACT at the time of impact, which means it MUST EXIT THE BORE INTACT, which means it CANNOT BE VAPORIZED BY HEAT GENERATED BY IGNITION OR FRICTION AS IT TRAVELS THROUGH THE BARREL.
Nor will it be vaporized on impact with tissue, or any hard surface it may encounter inside the vehicle after exiting the suspect's body.

IF the projectile was such a bullet, it would react to impact on glass (or anything else) differently than a hollow point.
Impact with glass COULD conceivably begin an early expansion with a poly-tip, whereas an HP might be expected to not begin to expand yet.

IF there was a poly-tip bullet involved, there SHOULD be remnants of that material somewhere inside the containment vessels, which in this case are the body and the car.

Why are you bringing up the poly-tips at all?
Were any found in Joes pistol or mags?
Or are you merely grasping at straws in trying to deal with the bullet hole in the window glass?

On the backup-gun issue.
It is the sign of a good questioning mind to seek and explore possible explanations to resolve questions in any investigation, but in doing so it's quite possible to get a little carried away.

Granting that real life can exceed fiction in the unexpected & outlandish, if you're suggesting that Joe fired one round from his duty Glock & another officer fired one round from an un-authorized backup gun, what circumstances would REALISTICALLY cause that second officer to do that?

If a second officer fired at all, why would he have risked the aftermath of using an un-authorized gun instead of simply using his authorized duty pistol?

What were the positions of the other officers present?
How large was the single hole in the window glass?

Were any other officers close enough in proximity to the window to REALISTICALLY be likely to have put a bullet through that same hole, so close to Joe's bullet impact?

Were any other officers close enough in proximity to Joe to have been LIKELY to achieve the same firing angle? (Although it can be quite common for multiple wound entrances & travel paths to differ in location & angle because of the suspect twisting, bending, otherwise pursuing movements of his own, or reacting to bullet impact, two impacts very close in time & coming from the same gun will usually tend to show at least similar locations & angles.)

If the closest officer to Joe was off-set at an angle and/or farther away, it's questionable whether a second round fired by anybody else would have struck so closely in the glass hole.
Certainly possible, but questionable.

A second officer firing one shot, from an unauthorized backup, is unlikely.

How far apart were the two left-side wounds on the body?
Denis
 
Either way, point being that it's there to DEAL with expansion & as such HAS to be intact on impact.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top