Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...

[Limnophile]

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.

The grip safety does nothing after it is disengaged, but all drawn weapons would not necessarily have any grip safety disengaged, although it's fair to assume that most that are gripped do (although I understand some train themselves to have the grip safety engaged at times, even while the pistol is gripped; for example, when reholstering. When out of the holster and set aside, the grip safety is obviously engaged with some positive effect.

I fail to see the purpose of comparing a gun, equipped with an external, affirmative safety, to one that is not so equipped when both are drawn and presented. After a safety-equipped gun has the safety disengaged, of course it will be as dangerous as its safetiless counterpart. The gun with the safety will be safer to carry, and can be safer to handle.

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?

Of course one should check any gun to see if it is loaded before handling it further, but if a human error is made and one forgets to do so, the gun that must have its trigger pulled before being disassembled is less safe. None of my defensive handguns (all CZs) requires a trigger pull to be taken down. Besides, to take down a gun that requires the trigger be pulled means that one has to violate three of Cooper's four rules of gun safety. If an ND occurs in the process the blame can be shared between the user and the designer.

 

[JohnKSa]

Straw man argument. I never claimed that Glocks are less safe that similarly flawed designs.

You made the blanket statement that Glocks are "obviously" "truly less safe". That statement, as it stands, it is false because there are many guns with identical operating systems and identical passive safeties. Regardless of how one defines "less safe" or whether or not one agrees with the assertion, it can not be true that a gun is less safe than another one that operates in an essentially identical manner.

For the statement to be true, you need to pinpoint specific designs which you claim are more safe. That will allow the discussion to progress constructively by comparing the different systems and how they work.

This kind of discussion can be quite informative if it is actually focused on how the different firearm safety systems work and the general philosophies behind the basic systems out there.

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...olice4full.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.

1. My response was not a strawman, as pointed out above.
2. Your assumption is incorrect and repeating your premises over and over (no matter how creatively) doesn't make them any more valid.
3. The article contains a large amount of information including opinions from a wide variety of sources. Anyone with motivation and the ability to read, and comprehend what they have read, can easily find numerous quotes from it to support virtually any position in terms of whether there is or isn't a problem, what the problem is, what the problem isn't, how to solve the problem, etc. It's not a surprise that you have singled out the pieces of the article you like and ignored the abundance of other information in it stating that the problem is training, not the pistol--including a direct quote from one official stating that "You can't blame the Glock for accidental discharges..."

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.

You know, it's actually pretty impressive how you casually state your assumptions within your comments as if they are fact and without drawing a lot of attention to them. But it still doesn't make them true.

Glocks are used by well over half the law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and are quite popular in the civilian sector as well. That's a huge number of people who own and use them. The idea that Glock would be able to effectively put a lid on all those persons in this era where information spreads like wildfire, is nonsensical.

Besides, to take down a gun that requires the trigger be pulled means that one has to violate three of Cooper's four rules of gun safety. If an ND occurs in the process the blame can be shared between the user and the designer.

Taking apart a firearm generally involves multiple violations of the rules of gun safety, that is why the first step must be a thorough check to insure the firearm is unloaded. There is no firearm in existence which can be safely disassembled while loaded. It is completely unreasonable to blame the firearm designer for the failure of the user to follow the universal first step in firearm disassembly.

Furthermore, trying to define degrees of "unsafety" which result from violating fundamental safety rules (e.g. Never disassemble a loaded gun.) is largely counterproductive. Trying to marginally increase the safety of a person who won't or can't follow basic safety rules is a worthless endeavor.

 

[tipoc]

Part of a similar discussion from New York in 2002...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729088/posts

Cominolli said he knows of dozens of "unintentional discharges" of Glocks in Central New York over the past 15 years, and estimates there have been thousands across the country. He won't refer to them as accidents because that implies the shootings could not have been prevented.

Syracuse police use Smith & Wesson firearms.

No national statistics are available on which manufacturer's handgun has the most unintentional firings. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that District of Columbia officers, who use Glock 9mm handguns, unintentionally fired their weapons more than 120 times over 10 years.

In 1988, the FBI issued a report on Glock handguns giving them low marks, citing a "high potential for unintentional shots," according to the Post. The agency will not release the report, according to an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C.

Despite that report, the FBI issues Glocks to its agents.

He said he's heard reports of a Glock being unintentionally fired, and each time it's because someone messed up; the gun itself has never malfunctioned.

tipoc

 

[Limnophile]

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.

How does pointing to other flawed designs support the design flaw? If we took the brakes out of all cars do all cars become safe?

Your 3rd "flaw" really isn't a flaw either.

Considering that you completely failed to demonstrate how Flaws 1 and 2 are not valid, that's one heck of a non sequitor.

Considering 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.

I never claimed that Glocks are the only less-safe handguns. As you point out, others have adopted decidely less-safe features. I'm glad you recognise that. However, only Glock, in their advertizing, claims perfection and a safe action; amazingly, many people believe these outrageous claims.

So if these pistols are so unsafe, what do you recommend for law enforcement?

Safer handguns.

To be honest, the spate of Glock NDs may be behind us. There is no doubt that it is still less safe, but training over the past two decades seems to have mitigated the risk to a large extent. We hear less of large numbers of Glock NDs at police departments; incidents seem to be more sporadic and less frequent. After all, Cooper's Rule #3 has effectively been rewritten to accomodate the Glock.

One sign of the change is cop movies and TV shows. Pre Glock the cop's finger is almost always on the trigger when his gun is drawn and not shooting. Today the cop's finger is almost always straight along the frame, outside the trigger guard, even when pointed at a suspect, if not shooting. Obviously, trainers have hit actors over the head about how a Glock needs to be handled. I suppose if actors can be trained, so can police and armed citizens. Actors, however, get a second take if they screw up.

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.

Wow! I'd like to hear the logic behind that conclusion. My impression is that police stuck with DA revolvers for a long time because their long and heavy DA trigger pull was considered safer than a light SA trigger pull. I understand that shrouded revolvers came into existence to prevent an external hammer snagging clothing during the draw, but, even more importantly, to prevent cops from putting the revolver into SA mode by cocking the hammer. Given that cops were trained to mitigate the DA trigger pull by staging the trigger, that measire became extremely dangerous in SA on a revolver with no affirmative safety.

A stock 1911 is likely to have a trigger pull similar to that of a stock Glock. The lightness of the 1911 trigger, however, is mitigated by the grip and thumb safeties. I fail to see how you can claim a gun with two externals safeties can be less safe than one with a similar trigger weight with no external safety. Either gun can be unsafe in the hands of an unsafe user, but the long-term use over many users is what I'm referring to. Under such terms, a gun equipped with safeties can be as unsafe as a safetiless gun if the safeties aren't used, but the safetiless gun can never be as safe as the gun with safeties if the safeties are properly used. Neither gun is safe, but one will in the long run be safer.

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.

You first have to produce a credible argument demonstrating that a 1911 is more dangerous than a Glock.

There are probably far more 1911s floating around the US than Glocks, but we hear a lot more stories of Glock NDs. Maybe that's because Glocks see more carry time than 1911s these days? The US military latched onto the SA semiauto pistol early and stuck with it for 7.5 decades. I doubt they would have been enamored with an unsafe sidearm for that long. Three decades into a DA/SA semiauto replacement and the military is ready to find something else, but I read no gripes about the DA/SA mechanism or any aversion to a SAO. My guess is that, just like in 1910, they will require any new sidearm to have an affirmative external safety.

 

[DubC-Hicks]

My logic behind the conclusion that 1911s are more dangerous when drawn by an officer? Because when the 1911 is drawn and ready to be used by an officer, the grip safety will be depressed and the thumb safety turned off. You're left with a single action trigger that is lighter and shorter than the Glock trigger. Therefore, more dangerous. But this can be solved with proper training and proper trigger control. It can all be solved with training. But I doubt that you can comprehend anything I just said, as I don't think you've understood what anyone else has posted in this thread.

 

[DubC-Hicks]

And to why your first two flaws are not valid. When an ND happens, it usually happens when an officer has his handgun drawn and ready, correct? At least that's what the article was saying. So if it's drawn, the safety is probably already off. So might as well not even have one. Which leads to what you call a flaw with the "light DAO trigger". If the safety is off on a single action gun, you've got a light single action trigger. A Glock without a safety has a 5.5-6lb trigger, with more take up and travel. So that'd make the Glock trigger harder to pull.

So in a situation where an officer has his gun drawn, how exactly is a Glock more dangerous?

 

[TunnelRat]

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.

What is nonsense in your opinion may not be nonsense to others. You've taken your argument and presented it here as irrefutable fact. I do not see enough evidence here, with what little evidence you have presented, to convince me of that. I imagine you feel the same about my argument. Honestly I believe this exchange has gone as far as it can go as I can clearly not convince you and as I stated you have not convinced me.

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:

Quote:
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 already explained how what you said is in my opinion exactly what I bolded above.

 

[Brotherbadger]

Faulty products are made all the time. The Glock to me is a faulty product. Its just not made in a way which facilitates safety.

The best safety is the one between your ears. All safeties can fail. Follow the rules of handling a firearm and you will be fine. I've carried guns with external safeties and guns without. As long as you practice safe handling off the firearm, you'll be fine. For the record, in not a big fan of Glocks in general(I'm more of a Sig fanboy to be honest). I do not think they are unsafe though.

 

[jabba21]

If you don't understand why Glocks are safe and know how to practice using them safely, I don't want you around me with any gun period.

 

[Limnophile]

The Glock is the only modern firearm I know 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.

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.

I make no claim of being an expert. I openly qualified my statement as being limited to my knowledge, and do not object to being characterized as monsterously ignorant about handguns. However, whether or not the Glock is unique is immaterial to the fact that Cooper's Rule #3 has been effectively rewritten by many. Rewritten for the better? Perhaps. The idea of teaching LEOs to stage a DA trigger to compensate for an abyssmal trigger pull flies in the face of gun safety. That trainers felt trigger staging was necessary or desireable is a sign that something was inherently wrong with the trigger. I eliminate the undesireable nature of the DA pull on my CZs by never using them in that mode.

The Glock is the only modern firearm I know that has required gun safety be modified to make the gun seem safe.

Ok, focusing on the second portion of the statement.

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.

I've always assumed Cooper's rules were derived from those of the US Naval Service, as I learned gun safety from my dad, who served in the navy, but shot shotguns a lot as a boy. Dad's version of gun safety rules always seemed better thought out than the NRA's version, and Cooper's formulation is close enough to Dad's to be effectively identical, except -- Dad had one additional rule: Do not disengage the safety until ready to shoot. Dad's version of Cooper's #3 also included the admonition to keep the trigger finger outside the trigger guard until ready to fire.

Dad's extra rule has undoubtedly shaped my view of safetiless handguns. All my firearms -- rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- have a thumb-actuated safety. I honestly would have a very hard time buying a safetiless gun; however, I could accept a handgun with a heavy, long DA trigger pull, as I believe that is a provenly safe system, as demonstrated by the spate of NDs that occurred when police departments switched from such platforms to the less-safe Glocks.

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.

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.

Come on, John, that clearly absurd statement was thrown in for comic relief. Besides, make me emperor and I would repeal laws, not pass new ones.

 

[JohnKSa]

How does pointing to other flawed designs support the design flaw?

Again, it's impressive how you state your assertions in passing as if they are fact. Twice in this one sentence.

You claim that a particular design, one that is, by the way, very successful by any definition of that term, is flawed. When it is pointed out to you that a number of other manufacturers and designers are making and selling other successful similar designs with the same operating features and safety characteristics, you simply claim that all the rest of them must be flawed too.

One could call it being supremely confident, or supremely arrogant, but either way, it's clear that you aren't bothered much by the fact that your opinion contradicts that of a number of experts. Disagreeing with experts doesn't automatically mean you're wrong, of course; however, given your admission that you "make no claim of being an expert. ... and do not object to being characterized as monstrously ignorant about handguns.", it should at least give you pause.

Also, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Glock design is "less-safe", that does not automatically imply that the design is flawed. Increased safety does not necessarily imply a superior or unflawed design any more than a more unforgiving design automatically implies an inferior or flawed design.

Does a motorcycle automatically possess a design flaw because it is less safe than a car? Of course not. A motorcycle can be designed perfectly and it will still be a much less forgiving design than a car because it is based on an entirely different design philosophy.

Is a brick a superior weapon to a firearm simply because it is far harder to accidentally "discharge" it at a person? Of course not. What it makes up for in safety it gives up in other ways.

One needs to assess designs as a whole rather than attempting to ignore the forests in favor of focusing on a few trees.

As I've mentioned a few times, there are different basic philosophies of operation (including safety functionality) when it comes to handguns. Each has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other philosophies and it is instructive to discuss the various philosophies to determine the various advantages and disadvantages of each. That furthers the goal of allowing people to make informed decisions.

On the other hand, beginning with the assumption that there's only one correct design philosophy and that all the others must therefore be flawed leads primarily to argumentative exchanges rather than informative discussion.

Come on, John, that clearly absurd statement was thrown in for comic relief.

For future reference, it is often wise to use emoticons when posting to convey non-verbal cues. Something that seems clearly absurd to you, might, to others, seem only marginally more absurd than some of the other claims made on this thread.

The idea of teaching LEOs to stage a DA trigger to compensate for an abyssmal trigger pull flies in the face of gun safety. That trainers felt trigger staging was necessary or desireable is a sign that something was inherently wrong with the trigger.

I don't know who's training LEOs to stage the Glock trigger, but that is certainly not consistent with Glock's training on proper trigger operation nor is it consistent with the guidance provided by any reputable trainers I am aware of.

 

[2damnold4this]

Instead of folks simply claiming that Glocks are inherently less safe in the hands of police than other firearms, how about producing some numbers?

We know that police can and do have negligent discharges with revolvers but what are the numbers? I don't know the breakdown of how many guns of each type are carried but the NYPD reported in their 2012 shooting report that of the 13 officer involved NDs for the year, four were with Glocks, six with S&Ws and three were with Sigs. Unless someone can come forward with some numbers showing that Glocks have a higher rate of NDs per hour carried than other firearms, it certainly seems more like a training problem than a Glock problem.

A few anecdotes and whining about the lack of a long trigger pull or external safety isn't data that we have a Glock problem. When someone can show some numbers proving there is a correlation between carrying Glocks and the rate of NDs by police, I'll start listening.

 

[Brutus]

Never buy a gun with a springy thingy in the trigger

 

[Deaf Smith]

NYPD uses NY-2 triggers. 12 lb pulls. I've shot one and its not easy at all to have a AD/ND with one.

I've also packed a Glock ccw for 20 years (with NY-1/3.5 connector) and used them in IDPA and other matches as well as at multiple gun schools that ran hot ranges. Not a AD/AD.

Those that have accidents I have no doubt have poor trigger finger control.

People have had AD/NDs with revolvers, DA/SAs, DAOs, SAs, etc.... to boot.

It's a training issue folks, not an equipment issue. Lots of people are not gun people and need more safety training. A lot of LEO departments just would rather spend their money on other things and liberals would rather ban things.

And I'll add to 2damnold's post and say when they show stats show how much range training the LEO's departments give them.

Deaf

 

[amd6547]

When I was young and foolish, and first owning firearms as a newly minted adult, I had a negligent discharge with a safety equipped DA/SA pistol...all due to my own stupid behavior. Thankfully, no one was hurt by the loudest shot I ever heard.
I learned from the experience, and began a lifelong habit of treating all firearms as if they are loaded, and obsessively check for empty chambers whenever handling one.
I like Glocks, and treat them exactly like any other firearm. I cannot conceive of pulling the trigger on my Glock to disassemble it, without first checking the chamber...it just wouldn't happen.
If I am prepping to clean my Glock, and get interrupted by the phone, the first thing I do upon returning is...check the chamber.
...just like any other firearm I own. Shotgun, rifle, glock, or revolver...it doesn't matter.
If a particular individual doesn't feel the Glock is safe for them, then they shouldn't own one.
After all, as Harry Callahan said, "a man's got to know his limitations".

 

[christian812]

An opinion from Belgium…
Any man (or women), any situation… are different.

But maybe the most important > your main weapon is your brain and everybody has a different brain (a chance !).
Also, everyone should know and accept his limits !
But a lot of people want to be the best, specially when they're not > humans are like that !

I have shot a lot of handguns and finally bought 3.
My personal "limit" is DA/SA with decocker > 1 in the pipe > long, heavy first DA shot > the rest SA.
That's why I feel confident with my P226 and P2000 (this one is my CC).
I don't mind to have my finger on trigger in DA > won't shoot, even in stress > we made some tests at the range.

The third one is a 1978 BHP with the tiny safety lever > only for (great) fun at the range.
As Belgian and for the price, I couldn't pass it !

A few years ago, Belgian Police adopted the Glock G17 as service weapon (should have give the choice with the G19 for small hands).

I know an instructor at one of our police training center.
And yes, accidental discharges are common in draw drills !

Many police officers (mainly the ones in plain clothes) go for a lighter trigger (which is not authorized… but) !?
I've tested one of these G17 modified > It will NEVER be my CC !!!!!!!!!
I consider this modified G17 a dangerous service weapon, specially under stress !

I repeat, a very personal opinion !

 

[marine6680]

Proper technique of using a firearm with a safety, drawing from a holster...

1)Acquire a firm and proper grip
2)Release/disable any retention devices
3)Draw pistol from holster, and present pistol on target, while disengaging safety.
4)Acquire sight picture, and then fire. If no immediate need to fire, keep finger off trigger

Notice that the safety is disengaged by the time the pistol is drawn fully... Meaning no safety to prevent you from pulling the trigger. NADA... just a short light trigger pull when using a SA... that's inherently less safe if one should put their finger on the trigger when they should not, than a Glock type action.

So, if the logic that even a trained person puts there finger on the trigger a significant amount of the time even when they shouldn't...

I would say any pistol with a safety is also at risk and unsafe to carry.


Long heavy trigger pulls can also be a detriment to safety. They require a lot of training to master... more time than the average police officer actually trains with a firearm.

So those long trigger pulls become a further hindrance to good accuracy... added to the complications of stressful situations, it leads to poor accuracy and increases the likelihood of bystanders being hit with a stray round.


There is no such thing as a completely "safe" firearm.

Glocks (and similar pistols) are used successfully all over the world. The very low percentage of accidents with them compared to the amount they are carried and used is a testament to that.

 

[christian812]

Marine,

I agree with you.

" There is no such thing as a completely "safe" firearm ".

This is why I train to "double tap " with the first shot DA and the following SA !
The DA is 2 or 3 inches away, but the following SA is dead on …!

I'm not trying to convince anyone.
Just feel confident with who I am.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A lot of rhetoric and many articles are written by folks who are not really human factors professionals. They give their opinion based on anecdote X or Y.

Guess what, the issue has been looked at. Let me summarize from the real professional research - not just being a alumnus of a particular school.

1. The issues are:
a. Clearing the gun
b. Trigger control

A. There is a reasonable point that all guns that require a trigger pull to disassemble have a procedure that can lead to an ND due to the operator not clearing the gun.

The problem is clearing the gun.

B. NDs because of a mistaken trigger pull:

1. The operator has a finger on the trigger when they shouldn't. This is a training issue and many police departments (for ex. the DC police) have had ill trained operators. So do naive civilians. That's why the gun games stress trigger control - an argument for competiton BTW.

2. Unfortunately, all guns have what the human factors folks call an affordance, the natural configuration of the pistol leads to finger moving towards the trigger. This has to be controlled by serious long term training. Reps, reps, reps. Most civilian gun owners and police don't practice enough.

3. Having a manual safety - nice for a hunting rifle but it is an empirical question for a gun that has to go to immediate use. The stress response may cause the trivially trained operator to forget to flip it in a fight. You see that in matches all the time with 1911s - even with serious users.

4. A heavy trigger pull, DA first - blah, blah. Well, research has shown that if you keep your finger on the trigger, the factors that cause an ND on a 4 to 5 pound trigger such as stress, slips, sympathetic hand squeezes based on the action of the other hand ALSO overcome the standard DA pull on most semis. So that argument is invalid. It sounds good but it's BS.

To cut to the chase, if the gun is cleared and you keep your finger off the trigger (through training), most of the problems are solved for all manner of guns.

The starting article is just one from some NOT expert in the real human factors processes or research design. Maybe the guy is a human factors engineer or applied cognitive psychologist - it's not on his web sight.

 

[christian812]

Glenn,

You're very theorical an I'm not a Pro !

These are so many guns designs.

All I'm trying is to be proficient with my CC (H&K P2000 V3)