Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...

[sigarms228]

Even if every LEO was required to use a SA/DA pistol with a safety, the safety would be flicked off when drawn from the holster and there is nothing stopping the user from cocking the hammer when user felt in imminent danger because wanting to avoid long/hard trigger pull.

In any case the article is very one sided and does not go into advantages of SF including, for the vast majority of shooters, not forgetting to disable safety under extreme stress and to have a more accurate first shot. How many lives of LEOs would have been lost by missing that crucial first shot??

And yeah LA Times.

 

[44 AMP]

I read the article.

I completely agree with some of the points, and disagree with others.

I am reminded of something Mas Ayoob talked about, a long time ago, and IIRC before the GLock was an item.

He was discussing semi autos for police work, and he felt that the DA semi auto was a better choice than the SA semiauto.

SA semis, like the 1911A1 are excellent guns, and fine for combat. (he wasn't addressing the issue of a manual safety). A DA gun is better for police work. His reasoning (which I agree with) is that a soldier's main function is to shoot the enemy. A police officer has a much different role.

A police officer will need to hold a suspect at gunpoint many, many more times than they will need to shoot them. A DA gun with its longer, (generally) heavier trigger pull is safer in those conditions. MUCH less likely to have an accidental discharge, even if, despite training, the officer's finger is on the trigger.

When all the pluses and negatives have been tallied I believe a Glock gives LE officers the greatest chance to come home alive at the end of their shift. There is nothing else in current use that has anywhere near the track record of success.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I would, however, like to point out that the large numbers of GLocks in service with the police is not the result of it being a safer superior weapon, but the result of GLock's superior marketing tactics. This is of course, my opinion, but the aggressive campaign to take over the police market that Glock used did work well for them.

A significant part of the decision as to what officers carry is the cost to the dept. Glock not only undercut their competition in price, but also bought the guns they were replacing (or gave the dept credit for them). In many instances, it was, literally "too good a deal to pass up" to the beancounters who do the budgeting.

I believe that Glock's "record of success" comes with a higher number of "accidental" discharges than any other arm, for several reasons, all of which are "explained" as a training issue, not any fault of their system.

And if they were the perfection claimed, why is there a NY trigger?

I don't think GLocks are "accident prone" but I think people are more accident prone with GLocks than with other systems.

including, for the vast majority of shooters, not forgetting to disable safety under extreme stress and to have a more accurate first shot. How many lives of LEOs would have been lost by missing that crucial first shot??

I hear so often today about how dangerous it is to have a safety, because you will forget to switch it off under stress. I do wonder why this wasn't a major topic of conversation during the century or so of auto pistols that all had safeties, before our modern era.

I'm sure it has happened, but so far, no one has been able to put together any documented, verifiable data on the risk, or the frequency. Personally, I feel it's like forgetting to step on the brake in your car. Some people actually do it, rarely, but for most of us, its not an issue.

On the other side of the coin, there are numerous, documented instances (just since the 1970s) of a police officer's life being saved by a safety.

 

[jglsprings]

Of course missing from the article and the discussion is a comparison of negligent discharges with other brands and designs of weapons.

I'm sure the LA Times would love to have us believe that negligent discharges leading to death and injury didn't happen in the past (before the evil Glock) and never EVER happened with any other type of gun. Horse-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-.

A number of major and minor agencies use guns with much longer double-action triggers that are just as easy to fire deliberately but that are much harder to fire accidentally. The half-inch difference of trigger travel may not sound like much, but it can be the difference between life and death.

This dismisses all of the "accidental" death and injuries that occurred BEFORE Glock came along and all of the "accidental" death and injuries that have occurred with other types of guns, including the "longer double-action" guns.

And of course the article dismisses all of the lawsuits and injury awards that happened before Glocks were used and all of the other lawsuits for other "accidents" that have occurred with other guns.

If you don't like Glocks - great don't buy one, don't shoot one, don't pick one up. But, leave me to make my own decisions about my choice of weapon. If you can't handle the responsibility of the design of any type gun, put it down. No one here wants you to be playing around with a weapon you are not able to handle and shoot safely.

The author of this hit piece doesn't want to talk about training, safety or policies around these topics - he doesn't like Glocks (and that is really okay, he doesn't have to) but his article is merely an opinion piece disguised as facts. Not much of an argument.

 

[g.willikers]

Bah, humbug, hog wash and b.s.
As always, the gun is the least of it.
The article sez that Glocks suffer from a short trigger pull.
Compared to a lot of guns it's actually kind of longish.
The real problem seems to be poorly trained and nervous people responding with guns in their hands and fingers on their triggers.

 

[Bongo Boy]

All I can say is that, if you 'instinctively' have your finger on the trigger when you're not shooting or about to press the trigger, then you haven't been adequately trained. By definition.

I instinctively hold my cordless drill with my finger off the trigger--it's instinctive. Of course, I've never been in a combat situation with my Milwaukee, but I'm just sayin'.

But, so what? Even if my opinion happens to be accurate and firearm training and experience is on average inadequate to ensure that having your finger on the trigger feels unnatural unless you intend to press the trigger...training is what it is and budget for it isn't going to get bigger, I imagine.

When it comes to what departments use, I have to agree with 44Amp though--I don't believe you can conclude '9mm is better', '40SW is better', 'Glock is better' or 'M&P is better', etc., just because one might predominate. Life-cycle cost and up-front cost might be way bigger factors in selection than anything else.

 

[michael t]

If glock safety so great Then lets put the brake pedal on the accelerator pedal I can use the extra foot room and will be so much quicker

I shot one once will never own one. I thought NYPD had 12lb triggers on the glocks

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't like Glocks for various reasons, but the problems with Glocks that were listed are often problems with other makes of gun as well to various extents. Glocks have been and are a good performer for law enforcement.

To argue that law enforcement should not have Glocks would be akin to arguing that the general public should not have Glocks either.

 

[Cheapshooter]

If glock safety so great Then lets put the brake pedal on the accelerator pedal

Completely irrelevant, and backwards to boot.
How about tow motors, fork lifts, locomotives, mowers, and other equipment with a "dead man" pedal. Where before it will operate you have to have your foot on the pedal. Then if your foot comes off the pedal, the equipment stops, or in other words becomes "safe".

 

[tipoc]

predictably the article blaming the gun for the operator's errors is in the l.a. times, just in case no one noticed.....

In case it was missed the author of the article was:

Bob Owens is the editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, a rifle marksmanship instructor with Project Appleseed and the author of the short ebook "So You Want to Own a Gun."

One of the earliest authors to point out the increased probability of certain types of unintended discharges with the Glock trigger was Massad Ayoob. He altered his opinion after he was hired by Glock as an instructor.

tipoc

 

[TunnelRat]

I think there's a bit of hypocrisy in saying that under stress regardless of training an individual will put his/her finger on the trigger, but he/she won't forget to flip off a safety. Just as I think handguns with safeties can be learned, I think handguns without can too.

 

[Dragline45]

Funny how revolvers and alot of DA autos don't have a saftey but are perfectly fine, but the Glock is too dangerous. Sure a DA trigger is longer and heavier, but for a Glock to fire that trigger needs to be pulled, if someone consciously or unconsciously pulls that trigger, DA, SA, striker fired, I don't care, that gun will discharge.

IMO this has nothing to do with Glocks but instead the lack of firearms training that most LEOs get.

In years past I got to know quite a few LEOs and none of them were "gun guys" and they looked at their yearly/periodic qualification as just part of a PIA of being a LEO.

Couldn't agree more, some of the most firearm ignorant people I have ever met are LEO's and even Vets. Alot of them as you mentioned aren't gun guys, and alot of them because they are LEO's or are veterans think it qualifies them as experts on everything gun related.

 

[Marty8613]

.





I don't think GLocks are "accident prone" but I think people are more accident prone with GLocks than with other systems.


.

That's a thinker, while that isn't the fault of the gun, it is true. I don't suppose dogs are carrying them. This points out that the design has an inherent flaw due to not being designed around how people use them. It is designed around how they could or should. I have one gun in my house that is the Glock design, but the two people who might use it are trained on it. It is my wife's only gun, since she wanted to learn one simple, uncomplicated system. It is all she knows, so there is no confusion.

 

[manta49]

IMO this has nothing to do with Glocks but instead the lack of firearms training that most LEOs get.

In years past I got to know quite a few LEOs and none of them were "gun guys" and they looked at their yearly/periodic qualification as just part of a PIA of being a LEO.

Knowing that and knowing the level of training is unlikely to change, is a Glock the best choice.

 

[jglsprings]

Funny how revolvers and alot of DA autos don't have a saftey but are perfectly fine, but the Glock is too dangerous. Sure a DA trigger is longer and heavier, but for a Glock to fire that trigger needs to be pulled, if someone consciously or unconsciously pulls that trigger, DA, SA, striker fired, I don't care, that gun will discharge.

Quote:
IMO this has nothing to do with Glocks but instead the lack of firearms training that most LEOs get.

In years past I got to know quite a few LEOs and none of them were "gun guys" and they looked at their yearly/periodic qualification as just part of a PIA of being a LEO.
Couldn't agree more, some of the most firearm ignorant people I have ever met are LEO's and even Vets. Alot of them as you mentioned aren't gun guys, and alot of them because they are LEO's or are veterans think it qualifies them as experts on everything gun related.

This... in spades. Everyone on a gun forum thinks law enforcement officers are "gun nuts" (Just like us, right?). Couldn't be farther from the truth. I get more lip and attitude from some law enforcement officers on a qualification than I ever get from a public class.

 

[rickyrick]

Glocks exist because it's just point and shoot... No fooling with safeties or hammers or anything.

I don't like the concept.

I like safeties, I like hammers, I like DA/SA

 

[JohnKSa]

It is cited in the article that as much as 20% of officers instinctively put their fingers on the trigger in stress fire situations DESPITE being trained not to do it.

For this to be relevant to a claim that Glocks are problematic from a safety point, it has to be viewed in light of other service pistol candidates, otherwise this is just a problem with guns in general.

So, presumably the author is making the point that because officers instinctively put their fingers on the triggers and that's a problem with Glocks, if they were using other guns, based on a different safety system philosophy, that would prevent this from being a problem in normal use.

How, exactly, would that work? For example, in a gun with a manual safety, is the author claiming that these officers will leave their safeties engaged (per training) so that they can "safely" put their fingers on the triggers when they don't intend to fire? The problem with this kind of argument is that it says that we can solve a training problem by changing to a different operating system and assuming that there won't be any training problems with that new operating system.

 

[skizzums]

Anecdotes of increased accidental shootings have followed the pistol for more than 30 years wherever it has been adopted by police officers and citizens alike.

if the statistics are true, and accidental/negligent discharges/deaths increase when departments adopt glocks, then I think it should be considered. but the author of the piece cites no reference or any numbers.

I think if that were the case, the departments would choose or be forced to switch weapons from lawsuits etc. does anyone know where there are numbers to back up the claim?

Anecdotes

so..no evidence to back it up?

I never thought glocks had all that short of a trigger pull, if they did, I would like them more.

 

[357 Python]

While I am not a fan of the Glocks the gun is not the problem. Cops require training to do their jobs properly. Cops are also human (contrary to many's belief). The problem is training. With so much legal subjects to learn cops really don't get the number of hours necessary to handle their weapons like second nature. When we had revolvers we had plenty of training time. Now you may have 40 hours (20 classroom not handling a gun, 20 on the range) if you are lucky. This is simply not enough time to learn the weapon as it should be learned. Most of what is taught is how to pass the qualification test and little more. This is why there are so many advanced courses available to officers. However, their departments have precious few dollars to send all their officers to these courses. When an incident occurs who gets sued? The officer and maybe the Firearms Instructor who trained and certified the officer. Who should be sued? The Police Chief, the government entity that the officer works for. The officer is at the end of the chain and can legally operate under the training they have received. The Firearms Instructor can only train the officer according to the dictates of his agency's leadership even though many feel the training is insufficient for the most part. So how many hours are enough to properly train a police officer with a Glock? It depends on the officer. Some need much more time than others.

 

[GaryED50]

I've read this article a couple of times and I still feel its faulty gun handling that causes trouble more often then not. Also why is this incident included?

Just last month, Ocala, Fla., Police Officer Jared Forsyth was shot and killed by a fellow officer after a Glock training session. The fellow officer failed to do a chamber check before pulling the trigger as part of the handgun's normal disassembly procedure. When the gun fired, the bullet went through a gap in Forsyth's body armor.

This was clearly mishandling of the firearm, not faulty design

Gary

 

[skizzums]

I agree, he "purposefully" pulled the trigger. if you do that to ANY gun, with a bullet in the chamber, it's supposed to do that...... it's not supposed to be pointing at somebody.