You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Has anyone also considered that part of the reason we hear about NDs with Glocks more than other brands is because Glocks are more prolific than many other brands? Glock owns the lion's share of LE contracts nationwide, and notably so the the largest departments in the country (NYPD and LAPD) issue Glocks as a standard.
Last year a local police chief in the state over had a ND in his own office. The issue? While disassembling his pistol he forget to check the chamber. His previous duty weapon had a magazine disconnect safety where pulling the trigger with the magazine out and loaded chamber wouldn't discharge the handgun. In this case the officer's reliance on a safety device made him complacent over years and he forgot a fundamental rule of gun safety and this resulted in his negligent discharge when his manual of arms changed. Is the pistol to blame?
Last year a local police chief in the state over had a ND in his own office. The issue? While disassembling his pistol he forget to check the chamber. His previous duty weapon had a magazine disconnect safety where pulling the trigger with the magazine out and loaded chamber wouldn't discharge the handgun. In this case the officer's reliance on a safety device made him complacent over years and he forgot a fundamental rule of gun safety and this resulted in his negligent discharge when his manual of arms changed. Is the pistol to blame?
Last edited:
Limnophile
New member
Alright, so they shouldn't carry the M&P or XD that they all seem to be going to either.
XDs have an external grip safety, which should mitigate some of the Glockish risk.
Limnophile
New member
I'm sorry you think all my arguments are empty. The irony is I don't even own a Glock currently so I'm not sure how I'm a Glockaholic. But hey, ad hominems for everyone right?
I don't think each pro-Glock/anti-gun-safety argument I addressed is empty, I proved it. That you don't currently own a Glock demonstrates that one doesn't have to own a Glock right now to have fallen for Glock propaganda.
Can you please point out any ad hominem argument I used above? By the way, does a false accusation of argumentum ad hominem use qualify as the use of an ad hominem argument?
Well, that may be true of the guns you've owned but it is not true in general. Not by a long shot.Glock is the only one that required a trigger pull to field strip.
All of the Ruger Mk I, Mk II and Mk III autos require a trigger pull for disassembly. The Mk III autos even require that the magazine be installed when the trigger is pulled.Neither my Ruger Sr9 or LC9-S requires a trigger pull to field strip.
I didn't list S&W as one of the manufacturers with firearms that require a trigger pull for disassembly. All of the firearms manufacturers I listed design/make/sell firearms that require a trigger pull for disassembly. There are very likely others since it is pretty common for a striker-fired auto to require that feature unless the manufacturer goes to some trouble to bypass it. The DB9, from Diamondback Firearms, for example also requires a trigger pull during field strip.I've owned M&P autos too. No trigger pull required.
Per the manual, the XD requires a trigger pull for field stripping.Never owned an XD but have field stripped them. No trigger pull required.
Pull the slide slightly to the rear to release the slide stop lever. Then, firmly gripping the slide, allow the slide to slowly move forward until the spring tension is released. While holding the slide, pull and release the trigger with the firearm pointed in a safe direction to fully unlock the slide from the frame (See Figure 25-1.)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/XDManual.pdf
Perhaps you are thinking about the XD-M which does not require a trigger pull for disassembly.
A couple of things.Am I missing something here?
- You assumed that your relatively limited experience with firearms qualified you to make blanket statements about the entire world of firearms. While you may have only had experience with Glocks requiring trigger pulls to strip, there are many other firearms which require it as well.
- You assumed that your opinion was identical to fact. You may not like the feature, but there are a number of major firearms manufacturers and obviously many firearms designer who disagree with your opinion.
Obviously they are not "less safe" than the numerous designs which are essentially identical from a functional/safety standpoint....if Glocks are truly less safe, which, by design, they obviously are.
If you want to make statements like that and have a reasonable chance of supporting them, you will need to be much more specific.
I don't think each pro-Glock/anti-gun-safety argument I addressed is empty, I proved it.
If you say so.
That you don't currently own a Glock demonstrates that one doesn't have to own a Glock right now to have fallen for Glock propaganda.
Ah I see.
Can you please point out any ad hominem argument I used above?
Sure, calling me a Glockaholic. My appreciation for the platform isn't based on some blind addiction/love for them and calling me such is meant to discredit any points I bring up. But no matter what I say going forward will convince you otherwise I imagine.
Last edited:
Limnophile
New member
I've carried Glocks since 1992 and they have never fired unless I pulled the trigger.
Hasty generalization, a staple of invalid web forum argumentation.
My Glocks have a NY trigger which increases pull to about 8 lbs ...
Your NY1 trigger mitigates Glock risk at the cost of making the pistol less accurate to shoot. However, it's probably a reasonable compromise relative to the stock and double-digit NY2 triggers.
I appendix carry IWB and the heavier trigger is comforting given where the muzzle is pointed.
Not specific to Glocks, but I've never understood appendix carry.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
- Jeff Cooper
I'm with sigarms228. I think the problem is that many officers don't get the training they need and I do think that you should be very proficient with a handgun if you are going to carry a Glock. I think they should get more training period but the lack of a safety gives me even more concern.
Limnophile
New member
If you don't keep your finger off the trigger.....until you are ready to fire.....all bets are off, no matter what you are carrying.
Not necessarily true if using a handgun with an external safety. Remember, the thumb safety was added to the Colt M1910 at the Army's insistance, because the Army knew that trigger fingers have a tendency to stray inside the trigger guard at the wrong time.
What other reasonable and prudent safety devices are you in favor of disposing?
I would not want to depend on trigger pull or travel to keep me out of jail or bankruptcy.
Yet users of DA revolvers have done just that, with much success, for more than a century and a half. In fact, a long and heavy DA trigger merits, in my mind, to be regarded as a safety feature.
The biggest flaw of a heavy DA trigger can be largely mitigated by use of a DA/SA arrangement, where acceptable accuracy and precision are available when firing in SA. One reason why so many NDs manifested when police departments switched to Glocks is that many cops were taught to mitigate long, heavy DA trigger pulls by staging their triggers. Do that with a stock Glock trigger is asking for trouble. I suspect that the reason behind the heavier NY triggers was to allow cops to continue to stage their triggers rather than to retrain them to stop the unsafe practice.
DubC-Hicks
New member
Limnophile, that grip safety on the XD does absolutely nothing if the officer has his weapon drawn. When it comes down to it, in a situation with the weapon drawn by the officer, any striker fired pistol is the same. The officer will have the safety off, grip safety will be depressed, and trigger pulls are all relatively similar. The XD, M&P, Glock, P320, VP9, whatever, will be similarly dangerous. The only way to make it safer is a super heavy trigger pull, and that's not fool-proof.
As to the ND during disassembly, that's a complete training issue, not a gun issue. Proper training and brains would tell you to check for a round in the chamber before taking the gun apart. So what if you have to pull the trigger? Are you telling me you don't unload a gun when you're not required to pull the trigger to disassemble it?
As to the ND during disassembly, that's a complete training issue, not a gun issue. Proper training and brains would tell you to check for a round in the chamber before taking the gun apart. So what if you have to pull the trigger? Are you telling me you don't unload a gun when you're not required to pull the trigger to disassemble it?
Limnophile
New member
I figure if there was anything really wrong with the Glock platform, there are enough police forces as well as civilians who own and use them that it would have come to light long ago.
The flaws manifested themselves quickly, but corporate propaganda can be just as effective as political propaganda, especially when combined with money and a wise product placement strategy.
Flaw #1 -- the short, DAO light trigger. It can be partially mitigated by installing a NY trigger, and by rewriting Jeff Cooper's third rule of gun safety from:
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
to:
.Keep your finger off the trigger till you are ready to fire.
The Glock is the only modern firearm I know that has required gun safety be modified to make the gun seem safe.
Flaw #2 -- absence of an affirmative external safety. This can be mitigated by installing an aftermarket thumb or trigger crossbolt safety.
Flaw #3 -- the need to pull the trigger to field strip the gun. Oops! This violates even the rewrite of Cooper Rule #3, a clear design flaw. The only way I know of mitigating this flaw is through training.
I'm not characterizing Glocks as unsafe, merely less safe that other viable options on the market. I do think it ever bodes well when my brothers in the gun fraternity trivialize the importance of gun safety.
I think a federal law is needed requiring Glock carriers to wear a yellow, diamond-shaped caution sign, front, back, left, and right, that clearly says "Glock on Board," so those of us who wish to avoid being ND backstops can give such folks a wide berth.
Last edited:
Limnophile
New member
under stress I'd believe the possibility of forgetting to engage a safety is just as great.
And if you do forget to engage your safety, you end up with the equivalent of a Glock Safe Action pistol.
DubC-Hicks
New member
Limnophile, do you not realize that your first 2 "flaws" encompass many striker fired pistols? They all have relatively similar trigger pulls, and many don't have a manual safety.
Your 3rd "flaw" really isn't a flaw either. And like stated before, you can avoid flipping the little lever in the M&P magwell by pulling the trigger, and the XD requires a trigger pull to disassemble. So it's not only a Glock thing.
So if these pistols are so unsafe, what do you recommend for law enforcement? A 1911 with a light 4lb single action trigger pull and a manual safety that is going to be flipped off when the officer draws their gun anyway? I'd say that'd be even less safe than a 5-8lb striker fired trigger.
The only thing that would be safer than the striker fired guns would be something in a true DAO or a DA/SA with triggers heavier than the striker triggers. And that DA/SA would be just as dangerous as the 1911 if the officer cocked the hammer first. It all comes down to training issues, there's no way around that.
Your 3rd "flaw" really isn't a flaw either. And like stated before, you can avoid flipping the little lever in the M&P magwell by pulling the trigger, and the XD requires a trigger pull to disassemble. So it's not only a Glock thing.
So if these pistols are so unsafe, what do you recommend for law enforcement? A 1911 with a light 4lb single action trigger pull and a manual safety that is going to be flipped off when the officer draws their gun anyway? I'd say that'd be even less safe than a 5-8lb striker fired trigger.
The only thing that would be safer than the striker fired guns would be something in a true DAO or a DA/SA with triggers heavier than the striker triggers. And that DA/SA would be just as dangerous as the 1911 if the officer cocked the hammer first. It all comes down to training issues, there's no way around that.
Without getting into the validity of the last part of the sentence, let's just look at the first part that I've quoted.The Glock is the only modern firearm I know that...
If this part of the sentence is true it's only because you don't know much about modern firearms. In fact, there are a number of firearms which mimic the Glock's philosophy of operation including the basic functionality of passive safeties in the Glock design. The idea that the Glock is somehow unique amongst modern firearms is absolutely false and the only way a person could believe such a thing would be if they were monstrously uninformed about modern firearms.
Ok, focusing on the second portion of the statement.The Glock is the only modern firearm I know that has required gun safety be modified to make the gun seem safe.
The rule you quoted as if it is a modification of Jeff Cooper's rule is actually the second of the NRA's three gun safety rules. "ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot."
The idea that it is a modification of a pre-existing rule made necessary by the Glock operating system is pure nonsense.
The original rule is the one about keeping your finger off the trigger until being ready to fire. Cooper's rule is actually the newer (or modified, if you prefer) version of the original rule.
You know, you can probably get away with trolling on this forum for quite awhile if you are subtle about it. The quoted statement is not very subtle. You can discuss the operation of various handgun safety systems in minute detail and at interminable length with the blessing of the staff, but it is not acceptable to make comments like this one that make it plain that you're just trying to see how much trouble you can stir up.I think a federal law is needed requiring Glock carriers to wear a yellow, diamond-shaped caution sign, front, back, left, and right, that clearly says "Glock on Board," so those of us who wish to avoid being ND backstops can give such folks a wide berth.
Limnophile
New member
I hope everyone is having as much fun as I am. I am truly interested if a member of the anti-safe gun crowd can present a valid argument.
Where are the non-lion's share of ND reports for non-Glocks?
Law enforcement in the US began switching to semiautos with the coming of the high-capacity, DA/SA Wonder 9s, which made their appearance in the '70s. Glock was a late comer and many would say does not qualify as a Wonder 9, because it doesn't have a DA/SA trigger. The reason law enforcement embraced the Wonder 9s and not the venerable Browning Hi-Power is because a Wonder 9 handles like a DA revolver without the need for an external safety for safe handling, with the advantage of much greater capacity and more accurate SA follow-up shots. I don't recall any spate of reports about LE agencies experiencing a rise in NDs when the adopted, for example, the Beretta 92.
The officer obviously broke at least one of Cooper's safety rules; thus, he owns blame. But, if the firearm manufacturer designed the gun such that violating a gun safety rule is required to disassemble the gun to clean it, the manufacturer owns some liability, too. Apparently we don't hear about the amount of this manufacturer liability for Glock because Glock is fastidious about settling out of court with stringent nondisclosure provisions. In other words, it seems like the high price of cheap-to-make Glocks may be needed to fund the ND/AD hush money pool.
Has anyone also considered that part of the reason we hear about NDs with Glocks more than other brands is because Glocks are more prolific than many other brands? Glock owns the lion's share of LE contracts nationwide, and notably so the the largest departments in the country (NYPD and LAPD) issue Glocks as a standard.
Where are the non-lion's share of ND reports for non-Glocks?
Law enforcement in the US began switching to semiautos with the coming of the high-capacity, DA/SA Wonder 9s, which made their appearance in the '70s. Glock was a late comer and many would say does not qualify as a Wonder 9, because it doesn't have a DA/SA trigger. The reason law enforcement embraced the Wonder 9s and not the venerable Browning Hi-Power is because a Wonder 9 handles like a DA revolver without the need for an external safety for safe handling, with the advantage of much greater capacity and more accurate SA follow-up shots. I don't recall any spate of reports about LE agencies experiencing a rise in NDs when the adopted, for example, the Beretta 92.
Last year a local police chief in the state over had a ND in his own office. The issue? While disassembling his pistol he forget to check the chamber. His previous duty weapon had a magazine disconnect safety where pulling the trigger with the magazine out and loaded chamber wouldn't discharge the handgun. In this case the officer's reliance on a safety device made him complacent over years and he forgot a fundamental rule of gun safety and this resulted in his negligent discharge when his manual of arms changed. Is the pistol to blame?
The officer obviously broke at least one of Cooper's safety rules; thus, he owns blame. But, if the firearm manufacturer designed the gun such that violating a gun safety rule is required to disassemble the gun to clean it, the manufacturer owns some liability, too. Apparently we don't hear about the amount of this manufacturer liability for Glock because Glock is fastidious about settling out of court with stringent nondisclosure provisions. In other words, it seems like the high price of cheap-to-make Glocks may be needed to fund the ND/AD hush money pool.
DubC-Hicks
New member
All of our arguments have been valid if your ignorance would let you read and comprehend them. I've noticed you haven't countered any of the points that I've brought up, I guess you don't have an argument for them?
Limnophile
New member
I don't think each pro-Glock/anti-gun-safety argument I addressed is empty, I proved it.
If you say so.
I like the way you think -- sometimes.
That you don't currently own a Glock demonstrates that one doesn't have to own a Glock right now to have fallen for Glock propaganda.
Ah I see.
Makes sense, doesn't it? Glock propagandists have made great strides, despite an active and well funded modern liberal-progressive anti-gun faction that, I would think, would jump on a legitimate concern about gun safety. But, one thing I know about ML-Ps is that they can be bought. For them the bottom line is power, not a principled ideology.
Can you please point out any ad hominem argument I used above?
Sure, calling me a Glockaholic. My appreciation for the platform isn't based on some blind addiction/love for them and calling me such is meant to discredit any points I bring up. But no matter what I say going forward will convince you otherwise I imagine.
The term wasn't necessarily directed at you, but at those who formulate weak arguments in defense of a particular less-safe firearm. I have no problem accepting that you are not addicted to Glocks, but you are proof that non-Glockaholics are capable of spouting Glockaholic nonsense. To tell you the truth, based on what I've read that you have contributed, I associate your presence on these fora as a net positive. That said, I hope Glockaholics and those who are co-dependent with them will view this thread as an opportunity to refine their arguments in favor of a lower standard of gun safety, and if they cannot I hope they will reconsider their position. All while enjoying a spirited but harmless debate.
By the way, I am not conceding that the term "Glockaholic" is gratuitous, or even a form of name-calling, but even if it were it does not rise to the level of an ad hominem argument. In fact, it's not even an argument.
Even Wikipedia knows that:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument.
I didn't list S&W as one of the manufacturers with firearms that require a trigger pull for disassembly. All of the firearms manufacturers I listed design/make/sell firearms that require a trigger pull for disassembly. There are very likely others since it is pretty common for a striker-fired auto to require that feature unless the manufacturer goes to some trouble to bypass it. The DB9, from Diamondback Firearms, for example also requires a trigger pull during field strip.
I have to pull the trigger on my S&W SD9VE to disassemble it. I compared it to a Glock 19 that my son-in-law has and the mechanicals are so similar it is spooky. I also can't get my Taurus apart without pulling the trigger.
Limnophile
New member
...if Glocks are truly less safe, which, by design, they obviously are.
Obviously they are not "less safe" than the numerous designs which are essentially identical from a functional/safety standpoint.
If you want to make statements like that and have a reasonable chance of supporting them, you will need to be much more specific.
Straw man argument. I never claimed that Glocks are less safe that similarly flawed designs. By the way you tailored your straw man, I must assume that you know very well that there are safer pistols than Glocks and their ilk. Heck, even the Washington Post figured that out in 1998: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police4full.htm. According to the Post the FBI had the Glock accurately pegged as less safe as far back as 1988, but their report has never been released. So much for government transparency.
I'd love a chance to dig into well maintained information sources to ferret out the statistics, but apparently Glock's liability lawyers know how to work the system to keep the info out of reach. Thus, law enforcement agency records, such as those exposed by the Post, are the best things available.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.