What I Don't Like About Glock...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me how to fire a S&W Model 10, at rest, without you adding the energy to fire it. (By cocking the hammer). That’s the way you would carry it. Not cocked, that would be unsafe. You can take out the hammer block, file down the block on the trigger rebound slide and, it still won’t fire. There’s no stored energy to fire the gun.
Click to expand...
To be fair, a comparable test would be trying to see if various other guns would fire from the half-cock position if the various safeties that prevent it were deactivated.

Glock doesn't claim there's no energy in the striker spring or that it's completely uncocked in the trigger forward position, just that it's not fully cocked until the trigger is pulled nearly all the way to the rear.
...I too believed, that a Glock was partially cocked.
Click to expand...
It IS partially cocked. About 50% of the striker spring compression by distance is performed by the trigger pull. About 75% of the striker spring energy is generated by the trigger pull. Regardless of whether there's enough energy stored to fire some types of ammunition when the gun is placed into a configuration that could never be realistically achieved in the real world, the gun is still only partially cocked in the trigger forward position.

Let's say you found out that a particular revolver had enough mainspring energy to fire from the half-cocked position. Would you then say that the half-cocked position is now the fully cocked position? Of course not. Partially cocked is partially cocked regardless of how much energy is stored in the main spring/striker spring.
But, there’s enough stored to fire it pretty regularly, without that last 1/8” or so of movement.
Click to expand...
In a 17 or 19 sized Glock the trigger pulls the striker back by about a fifth of an inch--about half the overall amount.
Adding the energy to fire it.
Click to expand...
If you want to be technical about it, the energy was added when the gun was picked up. Raising the gun up creates potential energy. Dropping it just converts the potential energy created by picking it up to kinetic energy as it falls.
 
What other guns are carried half cocked safely?

Both a 1911 and a Colt SAA, it is considered dangerous to carry half cocked.

Only since the striker fired “Glock” era, has this been the norm.
 
What other guns are carried half cocked safely?
Click to expand...
There are a few--the CZ75 with a decocker, for one. However, that's not really relevant to whether a partially cocked gun is partially cocked or fully cocked.

You can't redefine half cock/partially cocked/full cocked based on whether the gun will fire from those positions.

A partially cocked gun is partially cocked. A fully cocked gun is fully cocked.

A gun that will fire from the partially cocked position is still partially cocked when it's partially cocked and fully cocked only when it is fully cocked.

If a gun has a weak mainspring or broken firing pin and won't fire even when it's fully cocked, it's still fully cocked when it's fully cocked even though it won't fire. The full-cock position doesn't suddenly become a partially cocked position just because the gun will no longer fire from that position.

Your point about the Glock being able to fire from the partially cocked postion, at least under certain artificial circumstances, is correct.

But trying to take that accurate bit of information and use it to redefine how the Glock system operates doesn't work any more than discovering a particular firearm would fire with the hammer in the half-cock position would redefine that hammer position from half-cock to full cock. The trigger still compresses the striker spring by about 50% of the total compression by distance--about a fifth of an inch. It still adds about 75% of the total compression energy present when the striker is released. The gun is still partially cocked with the trigger in the forward position and only fully cocked when the trigger is pulled nearly all the way to the rear.
 
I don’t disagree with what you said.

But, with a Glock. All the safeties and mechanical devices have to work properly, for the gun NOT to potentially fire.

A true DA, all the parts have to work properly for the gun TO fire.

Fair?

Hence, I (speaking for me) will not carry a gun that MAY fire if there are multiple failures of mechanical devices while it’s pointed at MY femoral artery.
 
But, with a Glock. All the safeties and mechanical devices have to work properly, for the gun NOT to potentially fire.
Click to expand...
You don't need for ALL of the safeties to work to prevent the striker from reaching the primer, you really only need for one or two of them to work--depending on which ones fail.

With 3 passive safeties, there are 9 possible combinations of failures.

There are two possible combinations that could potentially allow the striker to fall and reach the primer.

If the Ramp Safety and Firing Pin Safety BOTH fail, jarring/dropping the gun could potentially allow the trigger bar to release the striker and there would be nothing to prevent the striker from reaching the primer.

Obviously then, if the Ramp Safety and the Firing Pin Safety and the Trigger safety all fail that combination would also allow striker to fall if the gun were jarred or dropped.

It's worth pointing out that the Ramp Safety isn't a moving part, so it is kind of hard for it to "fail" in the sense of not operating properly. It's a solid piece of the trigger housing that would have to be physically damaged somehow to "fail". It can't, for example, jam in the "fire" position because it never moves. It's basically just a solid piece that prevents the trigger bar from releasing the striker until the trigger bar moves far enough to the rear to clear the Ramp Safety. Or, I guess, more accurately, it's two solid parts of the trigger housing--there's one ramp on each side of the trigger housing supporting the trigger bar on both sides.

If the Firing Pin Safety works, the striker can't drop from partially cocked position no matter what other safeties fail. In this case, nearly any other mechanical failure or breakage is nullified by the working firing pin safety.

Similarly, if the Ramp Safety works, the striker can't drop from the partially cocked position even if both the other safeties fail. With only the Ramp Safety intact however, striker breakage or trigger bar breakage/damage could potentially allow the striker to fall.

It's also worth pointing out that even if it were possible to disable all the safeties in a partially cocked gun, that, in and of itself, wouldn't cause anything to happen. It would still take something else (dropping or jarring the gun) to cause a problem. Even without the safeties the gun would need some sort of input to drop the striker.
Hence, I (speaking for me) will not carry a gun that MAY fire if there are multiple failures of mechanical devices while it’s pointed at MY femoral artery.
Click to expand...
It is fortunate that we live in a time where the variety, not just of carry guns, but also of "operating systems" for carry guns, is tremendous. Even people with unusual requirements can almost certainly find a gun/operating system that works for them.
 
Only since the striker fired “Glock” era, has this been the norm.
Click to expand...

Because there is a safety to prevent it from inadvertently firing. The steel pin requires the trigger to be pulled to be fired. It does not matter how much you push on the cruciform, it is not going to fire.

Unless someone removes or tampers with the safety features.

You just cannot get over the fact that the Glock, as designed is safe.
 
A lot of the argument here seems to be around carrying a Glock appendix because doing so results in a tensioned, whether fully or not, striker pointed at your femoral artery. I find it interesting that the majority of the concern here seems to be in the mechanical device itself, which has multiple internal safeties that would have to fail in order for it to fire, rather than the placement of the holster itself. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the probability of all of the internal safeties of the Glock failing in a manner needed for what would be a true accidental discharge (though there might be some question of if there is still negligence in allowing a pistol to get to such a mechanical state) is less than the probability of having a negligent discharge, probably by a noticeable amount. If the concern is damage to the femoral artery, a pretty reasonable concern, then maybe consider changing the location of your holster, regardless of trigger type?
 
I don't know how extensively the Glock has been drop tested with the trigger tab safety disabled. The trigger tab safety, being polymer, could certainly potentially fail. If so, a drop at the right angle resulting in sufficient inertial trigger travel could render the internal safeties moot.

This was the issue with the SIG P320 which omitted a trigger tab safety.
 
pblanc said:
I don't know how extensively the Glock has been drop tested with the trigger tab safety disabled. The trigger tab safety, being polymer, could certainly potentially fail. If so, a drop at the right angle resulting in sufficient inertial trigger travel could render the internal safeties moot.

This was the issue with the SIG P320 which omitted a trigger tab safety.
Click to expand...
I'm curious why the trigger tab being polymer means it could certainly fail. It being polymer keeps it light weight, which is important for the function of that part. Something would also have to strike the trigger tab with significant force to break it (as polymer has some flex) when it is protected by the trigger guard. It being polymer means it won't rust or corrode. I've actually never seen a case of that polymer tab failing. Does someone have an example?

I feel like this thread has a bit of a case of the what ifs, when there don't seem to be anything more than rumor to back up these scenarios as ever having happened. If we're going to go that route that's fine, but then we can what if ways for most systems to fail.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Have there been cases where a Glock fired a round because the internal safeties failed.
Click to expand...
It's not impossible although I don't know of any offhand. What's more likely is that modifications or even drop-in parts have disabled safeties resulting in unintentional discharges.
I don't know how extensively the Glock has been drop tested with the trigger tab safety disabled. The trigger tab safety, being polymer, could certainly potentially fail. If so, a drop at the right angle resulting in sufficient inertial trigger travel could render the internal safeties moot.
Click to expand...
It is certainly true that without the trigger safety, the Glock is not drop safe at some angles. In fact, in the worst case scenario (dropped directly onto the back of the slide onto a hard surface) the drop height would only need to be about 4 feet to fire the gun without the trigger safety. At least that's what the numbers I ran indicate.

It is also true that the trigger tab safety could break, as could any mechanical device. I've never heard of that happening, but there's no such thing as "break-proof" in the real world. That said, it's going to take a significant amount of force to break a functional trigger safety and it's very easy to check the trigger safety to see if it's functional. It's not a failure I would worry about.

Again, the more likely problem is modifications to the gun. When people try to reduce the trigger travel distance on a Glock, it's very possible that this can result in a situation where the trigger safety, and potentially other safeties, can be disabled.

Here are the things that people should worry about with Glocks.

*Not carrying in a rigid/semi-rigid holster that completely protects the trigger. Trigger motion is designed to disable the internal passive safeties. Not protecting the trigger is like carefully locking up your house and then hanging the key on the outside of the front door.
*Drop-in parts/modifications that result in trigger travel reduction. This can inadvertently disable the internal safeties, resulting in a gun that is not safe to carry.
*Modifications or damage to, or excessive wear of the firing pin safety, connector or trigger guard housing.
*Excessive wear on the firing pin and/or firing pin safety where they interact. This could either cause the gun to fail to fire or disable the firing pin safety.
*Insufficient engagement between the trigger bar and the striker lug.
*Unauthorized disassembly of the firing pin safety from the slide. Improper reassembly can cause the firing pin safety to jam in the fire position or make the gun hard to fire.
*Unauthorized disassembly of the trigger spring. Improper reassembly can cause the trigger to fail to reset.
*Excessive wear to the connector "ear" or the ramp/cam inside the slide that the connector "ear" rides against. This interaction disconnects the trigger bar from the connector, disabling the trigger. It's part of what prevents the gun from firing out of battery. The more wear there is, the farther back the slide can be out of battery and still fire. The ramp should have a tiny dab of light grease on it to prevent wear, and if a groove develops in the slide or the ear flattens significantly compared to a new connector, the gun should be examined by a certified armorer.
*Trigger block gadgets that place the polymer spring of the trigger safety under constant compression. This can actually damage the polymer spring, resulting in a trigger safety that won't go back to the safe position when it is released.
 
It’s not the gun I don’t like, it’s the rigid holsters you must wear to keep things out of the trigger guard.


I prefer a soft leather holster, or even something synthetic like Uncle Mikes type holsters, and since I carry appendix or 4 o’clock, a manual safety is a must for me.
 
I don't "like" glocks because they do not fit my hand, and the triggers are spongy. However 2 of them are owned, and no plans on selling them. The excellent old man sights, reliability, easily available/affordable mags and aftermarket overide my dislikes. My use of them is an option for defensive pistol. Never owned one until gen 4 came out with varying backstraps. Now have a model 19 and 42. Would be able to shoot them more accurately (50 yds), if didn't own any other handguns.
 
You just cannot get over the fact that the Glock, as designed is safe.
Click to expand...

I think what most people can't get over regarding the Glock's external safety is that they put put it right on the tip of the trigger. I never quite understood this either, to be honest. it's like putting a trigger on a trigger...the trigger won't work until you press the trigger on the trigger first. Glock could have done the same thing with a grip safety and no trigger-trigger.
 
I think what most people can't get over regarding the Glock's external safety is that they put put it right on the tip of the trigger. I never quite understood this either, to be honest. it's like putting a trigger on a trigger...the trigger won't work until you press the trigger on the trigger first. Glock could have done the same thing with a grip safety and no trigger-trigger.
Click to expand...

Because it's not really an external safety in that manner. It's primary purpose really isn't to stop the firearm from discharging were a finger negligently pressed against the trigger. What it is is a method to prevent inertia from firing the pistol were the firearm dropped muzzle up and the trigger driven rearward by inertia. The tab stops this as a result of it's very small mass and spring (if my understanding is slightly off there John can correct me). It can secondarily serve a purpose of stopping some snagging that doesn't directly hit the trigger tab, but that's not really it's main purpose.

I actually like this system better than a grip safety in terms of stopping interial drops. It involves fewer parts and seems to me to be less likely to cause a problem both from fouling or from a less than ideal grip, which may well occur in a defensive situation (a number of the shooters of old used to rubber band down the grip safety on the 1911).

I'd add that with the exception of the HS2000 and then the XD, XDm, almost all other manufacturers have gone with that same type of system. HK, Walther, S&W and FN use a hinge rather than a separate tab but the concept is the same, etc. It's basically become the industry standard. SIG went with a system that in theory shouldn't require the tabbed safety (though their own marketing materials from the release of the P320 did list an option for a tabbed trigger that to my knowledge never materialized). They then had the issues we're all familiar with. Had they just added a tabbed trigger, they likely wouldn't have had the issue.
 
TunnelRat said:
I'm curious why the trigger tab being polymer means it could certainly fail. It being polymer keeps it light weight, which is important for the function of that part.
Click to expand...

Bingo! I'll assume we all remember the SIG P320 debacle (I'll be so bold as to call it a debacle), and the root cause of the issue was inertial mass that allowed the trigger to keep going when the firearm hit the floor abruptly.

I don't think we want or need a steel trigger tab.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top