I'm not saying I fact-checked everything on his website, but in my experience, his information was good. He was obviously concerned with getting the details right. Some people really got bent out of shape over some of his coverage--he never pulled punches and that irritated some people.Dean Speirs GunZone did go out of business and the domain name sold. It was the only place that I know of that collected and followed articles on Glock with a critical eye. it was valuable for that if occasionally over the top in some claims.
His website content can still be found on the web archive.
The first upgrades related to unintentional discharges were announced in 1992.On the original question: Did Glock have any UD's having to do with it's mechanical safeties and failures of that and the answer is yes. Upgrades were done to the trigger system which corrected this. Glock did not issue a recall and performed the upgrade over a number of years in the 1990s. The Gen 2 guns were introduced before the upgrades.
Gun Tests magazine, and others made the link between Suffolk Co. and the firing pin upgrades. I quoted these above.
Upgrades to the frame were made following the DEA testing.
Based on additional research, it seems extremely unlikely that the Suffolk ADs are what caused Glock to design the upgrade parts although it may have been what prompted them to make the public announcement.
Earlier, I stated that the DEA "Frisbee" testing took place in 1992. That was incorrect, it took place in 1991. By the time the Suffolk ADs took place in January of 1992, Glock already had hundreds of the upgrade parts on hand and had been selling new pistols with upgraded parts since November 1991, as indicated in the upgrade announcement you quoted:
"This new firing pin safety system has been installed in all production Glock pistols since November, 1991."
Here is some information from TheGunZone:"The DEA "Frisbee Test"
While Suffolk County P.D.'s "AD heard 'round the world" certainly lent impetus to Glock's "going public" with its upgrade, clearly this is something that had been in the works for a considerable period of time, and well before October 1991.
Documents first provided by a source professing to be knowledgeable about the situation, and buttressed by other documents released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, indicate that failure during the "Frisbee" portion of the 1991 test protocols (DEA-91-R-0023), led to the Austrian pistols being "rated as unacceptable" for broader adoption by the Federal law enforcement agency. (Whereas Glocks had been one of several DEA-approved handguns, subsequent to the tests, the agency selected the SIG P228 as their "official" handgun and removed Glock as an option. No existing Glocks were removed from service, however, and Glock's Walter stated at the time that "Glock is not going to protest the test results, since we feel they were fair and equitable.")"
While Suffolk County P.D.'s "AD heard 'round the world" certainly lent impetus to Glock's "going public" with its upgrade, clearly this is something that had been in the works for a considerable period of time, and well before October 1991.
Documents first provided by a source professing to be knowledgeable about the situation, and buttressed by other documents released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, indicate that failure during the "Frisbee" portion of the 1991 test protocols (DEA-91-R-0023), led to the Austrian pistols being "rated as unacceptable" for broader adoption by the Federal law enforcement agency. (Whereas Glocks had been one of several DEA-approved handguns, subsequent to the tests, the agency selected the SIG P228 as their "official" handgun and removed Glock as an option. No existing Glocks were removed from service, however, and Glock's Walter stated at the time that "Glock is not going to protest the test results, since we feel they were fair and equitable.")"