BusGunner007
New member
I shot a GLOCK once.
I didn't like it.
I didn't like it.
What I Don't Like About Glock...
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
- Status
I was forced to carry a Glock. A 35 and a 22. Mechanically they are very good guns. I shoot them well enough. They are tough and reliable.
If you can get past the fact that they are cocked and unlocked pistols, they are good carry guns.
After I retired and I can choose what to carry, I will never carry a Glock again.
If you can get past the fact that they are cocked and unlocked pistols, they are good carry guns.
After I retired and I can choose what to carry, I will never carry a Glock again.
I am confused............ohhhh you mean the dovetail protectors..........those are supposed to be sights?????
Love them, hate them or are indifferent to them. If you are intellectually honest and have any firearms experience, you must give them credit as a damn good, well designed pure combat pistol. They may not be for you, they may not be for me and they damn sure aren’t “perfection” but they are a damn good gun even if you need life sized LEGO minifig hands to hold them.
They are not fully cocked pistols. They are closer to DAO with a short trigger travel. I, myself, prefer a longer, heavier first pull (DA/SA guy) but Glocks are not single actions.
Last edited:
Except, there is enough stored energy to fire. I took the firing pin safety out, put an inspection plate on the back, loaded a primed 9mm and pushed down the cruciform with a punch. It fired.
Same with a Kahr. The S&W MP is fully cocked. Most striker fired guns with the striker “partially back” will fire.
Gaston Glock was a genius. Both mechanically and marketing. He convinced everyone that it was a good idea to carry around a pistol with a 5.5 pound trigger, a short pull and, no manual safety.
Yes, they are easy to shoot. An off switch on a gun has become the worst thing ever. Yet a series 80 Govt Model, with a firing pin block, a grip safety and a thumb safety is considered dangerous because you can see the cocked hammer.
The only difference with a striker fired gun is you can’t see the “hammer”.
Last edited:
While it is possible to do a similar experiment and demonstrate that, at least some of the time a Glock striker has enough energy to fire from the partially cocked position, the method you describe is somewhat flawed.
For one thing, because of the way the safety ramp and cruciform interact, it is only possible to force the cruciform down sufficiently to release the striker by either deforming the cruciform and/or the safety ramp, or by inadvertently camming the cruciform backward so that the safety ramp does not block it.
The former is potentially damaging to the gun and could also create a dangerous situation by disabling one of the passive safeties. The latter doesn't test what it is intended to test because camming the cruciform backward adds energy to the striker compared to what is present in the partially cocked, trigger forward, position.
In fact, if the primed case DOES fire from this experiment, that is solid proof that the cruciform (and therefore the entire trigger bar) was pulled backwards inadvertently. We know this is true because unless that happens (unless the trigger bar is moved backwards), the firing pin safety will not be deactivated and it will block the striker, preventing it from reaching the primer.
A better method for performing the test is to carefully measure the position of the striker lug with the trigger in the forward position (the partially cocked position), and then replicate that position with a slide/barrel combination off the gun. Then the striker can be released from that position. This makes damaging the cruciform or safety ramp impossible and makes it very easy to see if the striker is being inadvertently pulled back farther than intended.
Aside from the potential safety issues (wear safety equipment--there is still substantial energy released by the primer), there is still one tiny fly in the ointment when performing this second version of the test. That is the fact that the firing pin safety must be removed to allow the striker to move forward freely. That changes the system by removing some of the friction on the striker that would normally be present. My gut feel is that is a small effect and probably not significant.
Here's a post I made awhile back after doing the test described above.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6640634&postcount=23
Thanks. I agree. I used an old trigger housing and replaced it after the test. I’m pretty sure I bent it down some.
With the Kahr I actually marked where the striker rested at The “cocked” position. Took the slide off, removed the firing pin safety and Used a wire to draw the striker back. The cut the wire. And, it fired.
An M&P is literally a trap door that releases the striker.
With the Kahr I actually marked where the striker rested at The “cocked” position. Took the slide off, removed the firing pin safety and Used a wire to draw the striker back. The cut the wire. And, it fired.
An M&P is literally a trap door that releases the striker.
Don't think they are 'cocked' in the sense of a hammer fired handgun..
YMMV and all that but I carry a Glock with one in the chamber everyday. I would never carry anything that had a manual safety..WTSHTF, I guess you'll remember that but I'd rather not. Striker fired guns, in a proper, trigger protected holster don't 'just go off'.
What's specific about it? That you can't Mexican carry? It needs to properly cover the trigger guard like a well made holster should.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Concern about Glock triggers is legitimate. It is a valid reason for not choosing a Glock as a primary carry. It's as valid a concern as many objections to da/sa triggers ("learning two different trigger pulls is hard") or single action pistols with external safeties ("I might forget to flick the safety off" or "lowering the hammer on a pistol can be dangerous", etc.).
When folks explain that Glocks are perfectly safe as long as the shooter keeps their finger off the trigger, well that's true. But as Hamlet said, "ay there's the rub".
Records from police depts. of unintended discharges over the last decade of more indicate that Glocks are more likely than other guns to fire in two particular situations: One is in holstering, where a finger or piece of clothing, etc. gets caught in the trigger as the gun is placed in a holster. The second is in disassembling the gun for cleaning when the trigger is pulled and a round is still in the chamber.
In the first case other guns can do this as well, instances have been recorded with da/sa guns. But the rate of this type of discharge is higher overall for Glocks and this is due to the trigger. The second type of discharge is particular to Glocks. Though again other guns have been fired when being disassembled but it is not as common as with Glocks due to the Glocks design.
This is not because Glocks are inherently unsafe or design flaws. It's just features that are particular to Glocks where shooters need to take special attention and training.
Handguns are built to make it easy for the trigger finger to reach the trigger...it's natural. In a fall or if someone grabs the gun to pull it away, or in trying to grab a gun that is falling, the trigger finger wants to go into the trigger guard for a stronger hold...naturally. This can cause a ud in most any type gun but in some designs it's easier than others.
tipoc
When folks explain that Glocks are perfectly safe as long as the shooter keeps their finger off the trigger, well that's true. But as Hamlet said, "ay there's the rub".
Records from police depts. of unintended discharges over the last decade of more indicate that Glocks are more likely than other guns to fire in two particular situations: One is in holstering, where a finger or piece of clothing, etc. gets caught in the trigger as the gun is placed in a holster. The second is in disassembling the gun for cleaning when the trigger is pulled and a round is still in the chamber.
In the first case other guns can do this as well, instances have been recorded with da/sa guns. But the rate of this type of discharge is higher overall for Glocks and this is due to the trigger. The second type of discharge is particular to Glocks. Though again other guns have been fired when being disassembled but it is not as common as with Glocks due to the Glocks design.
This is not because Glocks are inherently unsafe or design flaws. It's just features that are particular to Glocks where shooters need to take special attention and training.
Handguns are built to make it easy for the trigger finger to reach the trigger...it's natural. In a fall or if someone grabs the gun to pull it away, or in trying to grab a gun that is falling, the trigger finger wants to go into the trigger guard for a stronger hold...naturally. This can cause a ud in most any type gun but in some designs it's easier than others.
tipoc
I've had two Glocks come apart in my hands over the years. Our agency as well as a partner agency received brand new Glocks that were defective and ultimately 'repaired', as well as had issues with duty pistols cracking in service. I swore off Glock many years ago and have sat back and watched their list of recalls grow.
There are a number of better designs with better reliability/durability at similar or less cost.
Just say'n
There are a number of better designs with better reliability/durability at similar or less cost.
Just say'n
Two points.
Where is this database that records accidents across all police departments that you have access to (and does it account for the fact that it's pretty understandable for the most issued firearm to have the most negligent discharges by number)?
Don't grab a falling pistol. I don't care what trigger system it has.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Figures for several major police departments regarding this have been available on the web for a number of years now. NYC, LAPD, LA Sheriffs, Chigago and others. These are searchable.
There are no figures that cover all police departments in the U.S. I did not say or imply that there were. Not all Depts. make these records public, possibly most don't.
Glocks do not uniformly have the most unintended discharges in the Depts. that report them by gun and describe the reason. I did not say that they did and there is no evidence that they do. But there is evidence that they have certain types of unintended discharges at a higher rate than other guns. The term "Glock leg" emerged from law enforcement about two decades ago to describe the prevalence of the holstering issue. The discharging when being taken down is well recorded with special care being paid to instructing folks in that issue.
I want to repeat that there is no evidence that Glocks have more unintended discharges than other guns. But they do have issues particular to them. These reasons and features are valid reasons for a person passing on Glock.
tipoc
I haven't met a quality handgun that I didn't like and shoot reasonably well. I like Glocks for what they are. I like the knock-off copies of most guns until they add extra "safety" stuff that I think is un-needed.... like with the Ruger LC9 magazine disconnector, Springfield XDs grip safety, S&W revolver locks....
not all people are competent with firearms. not all "gun people" are competent with all firearms.
not all people are competent with firearms. not all "gun people" are competent with all firearms.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The one guy who almost shoot me was with a 1911. He was told to make ready. Which means chamber a round and put on the safety, then holster.
Well, on holster - Bang - a foot from my foot and inches from the other range officer. Then the gentleman starts waving the gun saying: Wha Happen.
He was grabbed by the other range officer and was DQ'ed.
Nothing really new in this thread either. Buy and train up with what you like.
I've seen every type of semi go belly up at times. A Beretta 92 had its lever shoot off to the side during a high end class. We had to look for it in the dirt and rocks.
Well, on holster - Bang - a foot from my foot and inches from the other range officer. Then the gentleman starts waving the gun saying: Wha Happen.
He was grabbed by the other range officer and was DQ'ed.
Nothing really new in this thread either. Buy and train up with what you like.
I've seen every type of semi go belly up at times. A Beretta 92 had its lever shoot off to the side during a high end class. We had to look for it in the dirt and rocks.
Folks are trying to get around something that they know is true but they don't like the taste of it.
Every type handgun from a single action and da revolvers to the Beretta 92, third generation Smiths and Sigs and the 1911 all have features that require specific training to get used to and to learn how to handle safely. All have specific characteristics as it were. Glocks are no different.
If you deny it ya lie to yourself.
A shooter is weaker if they don't take the time to learn the strengths and vulnerable elements of any pistol design.
tipoc
Every type handgun from a single action and da revolvers to the Beretta 92, third generation Smiths and Sigs and the 1911 all have features that require specific training to get used to and to learn how to handle safely. All have specific characteristics as it were. Glocks are no different.
If you deny it ya lie to yourself.
A shooter is weaker if they don't take the time to learn the strengths and vulnerable elements of any pistol design.
tipoc
If you have your head up your rear handling a firearm, someone could pay dearly, that’s how unintentional discharges happen and that is the one one thing all firearms have in common. Yep, when you become complacent bad things happen.
Manufacturer, the type of action a firearm has, safeties no safeties etc..etc..are irrelevant, it’s up to you to familiarize yourself with that firearm and train with it. I was unfortunate enough to be around two unintentional discharges in one day involving M&P .40’s, the first was during reholstering and not clearing their trigger finger, the second involved trying to catch the firearm when it was dropped. Both human error, one excepted responsibility for the unintentional discharge one blamed the gun.
Unintentional discharges involve human error, of course there rare exceptions to that. As for me, my carry gun will never have an external safety, I will leave the safety for my long guns and single action auto’s.
Manufacturer, the type of action a firearm has, safeties no safeties etc..etc..are irrelevant, it’s up to you to familiarize yourself with that firearm and train with it. I was unfortunate enough to be around two unintentional discharges in one day involving M&P .40’s, the first was during reholstering and not clearing their trigger finger, the second involved trying to catch the firearm when it was dropped. Both human error, one excepted responsibility for the unintentional discharge one blamed the gun.
Unintentional discharges involve human error, of course there rare exceptions to that. As for me, my carry gun will never have an external safety, I will leave the safety for my long guns and single action auto’s.
Last edited:
I don't change my handling of a firearm when it comes to safety as a result of the firearm's own safeties. Just because a pistol with a manual safety might afford me more leeway than a Glock doesn't mean I start putting my finger on the trigger when I don't have to. It doesn't mean I don't check my holster for obstructions before I holster the pistol. It doesn't mean I don't check the chamber before disassembling even if I don't have to press the trigger. I'm not sure how this is lying to myself. Are there differences in the manual of arms? Yes. I don't allow those to make me complacent.
I'll add that the manual of arms we're discussing here is not unique to Glock.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
- Status