Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You would have to mandate that the Police carry them with safeties ON.
Is that reasonable? It would take a high level of training to ensure that they are removed quickly when the gun is drawn in a fast critical incident.
There are other human factors problems with the safety removal on the draw.
1. You draw
2. You remove the safety
3. Does your training emphasize firing after removing the safety or putting the trigger finger in a safe position?
4. When one draws the gun, it is not always necessary to fire. Thus, if training has two modes:
a. draw, off, shoot
b. draw, off, safe finger position
you add a possible confusion to just draw and finger to safe position.
You might argue that with no safety it is just draw and shoot leading to an ND.
However, it is argued in the HF analyses, that the draw, safety manipulation takes you farther down a motor program that leads to a shot. The extra move adds to the compulsion for a trigger pull.
Is that reasonable? It would take a high level of training to ensure that they are removed quickly when the gun is drawn in a fast critical incident.
There are other human factors problems with the safety removal on the draw.
1. You draw
2. You remove the safety
3. Does your training emphasize firing after removing the safety or putting the trigger finger in a safe position?
4. When one draws the gun, it is not always necessary to fire. Thus, if training has two modes:
a. draw, off, shoot
b. draw, off, safe finger position
you add a possible confusion to just draw and finger to safe position.
You might argue that with no safety it is just draw and shoot leading to an ND.
However, it is argued in the HF analyses, that the draw, safety manipulation takes you farther down a motor program that leads to a shot. The extra move adds to the compulsion for a trigger pull.
That doesn't and won't happen for different reasons. You have to remember that a lot of police officers have no interest in firearms, they just come with the job. So they will not be training outside the training they receive in the job. A ten year old could come up with don't pull the trigger, but we are dealing with human beings and they will always sometimes do what they shouldn't. So for me having something in place that that could possibly stop the firearm firing when the trigger is unintentionally pulled is one sensible option.
Last edited:
jolly roger
New member
As far as the trigger control goes no amount of trigger poundage will prevent a startle reaction when the finger is on the trigger. Ive been a cop for 35 years and there were documented cases where people jerked a double action ONLY revolver during such situations. Some estimate the capability of "pull" in such events could reach as high as 30 pounds..but I DO have NY triggers in all mine and like them that way. Every single ND from a Glock that I am intimately familiar with were caused by no chamber check before the "disassembly pull". Therein lies the real "danger" of the design. Fortunately none of our people were injured and they were directed toward unloading barrels. Those are sold for a REASON. The real concern I have are the large majority of officers who NEVER practice with their guns except for mandated training. Many outfits used to qualify every quarter. My former agency before retirement from that one used to have MONTHLY range practice days. That doesn't happen anymore. One would think with the huge public scrutiny officers are under that training would be of prime concern but budgets have been strained due primarily to ammo
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Serious answer - we know the answer. Training.
If we don't want to spend the money to do that, there is no techy solution to loaded guns that shouldn't be and triggers on the finger when they shouldn't be.
Sorry to say, you have missed the point. How can a gun decide that the trigger pull is unintentional? When a person walks up the stair with finger on the trigger and trips?
The endless Glock/hate Glock discussions on the Internet are just hot air and as useful as a Superman Vs. the Hulk thread on some comic forum.
Robocops, bobbies with no guns, unloaded guns?
The Dutch load of a revolver with a blank, cork bullet, rubber bullet, tear gas rounds and one real round?
The greater risk to officer safety lies in stress disorders, health issues and the like. The ND rate is minor compared to those.
So just like folks will talk about this gun or that. What gun for the house? What shotgun round (when they never trained for tactical use)? It's baloney. The vast majority of modern guns are safe to use if you know how.
If we don't want to spend the money to do that, there is no techy solution to loaded guns that shouldn't be and triggers on the finger when they shouldn't be.
Sorry to say, you have missed the point. How can a gun decide that the trigger pull is unintentional? When a person walks up the stair with finger on the trigger and trips?
The endless Glock/hate Glock discussions on the Internet are just hot air and as useful as a Superman Vs. the Hulk thread on some comic forum.
Robocops, bobbies with no guns, unloaded guns?
The Dutch load of a revolver with a blank, cork bullet, rubber bullet, tear gas rounds and one real round?
The greater risk to officer safety lies in stress disorders, health issues and the like. The ND rate is minor compared to those.
So just like folks will talk about this gun or that. What gun for the house? What shotgun round (when they never trained for tactical use)? It's baloney. The vast majority of modern guns are safe to use if you know how.
It's not just the safety of the police officer i am sure if I did a quick search, I could find of incidents of civilians injured by police N/Ds.
Probably just me but you have lost me with that reply, maybe you could elaborate.
Its easy to come up with what the problems are, and dismiss some people suggesting a safety could help. But i don't hear many solutions.
You have lost me with that one as well.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Such is life. Others can decrypt my subtle implications, hints and reasoning.
To be fair here, it's not entirely the fault of the department. I'm sure most of us are aware that people love services but hate to pay for such services. Unless you live in a very high crime area, many people think scaling back the police is a fast way to save money and lower local taxes. Some departments are lucky and their communities are very supportive. Many aren't so lucky.
In taking shooting development classes alongside a number of officers, they have all expressed to me that unless they dip into their own personal savings they received no additional training besides the academy. Besides their yearly qualification, many aren't given the opportunity to develop their skills. Now should they as of course of action for choosing that occupation? Probably, but let's be even-handed to an extent.
Despite carrying DA/SA pistols for years, I have to also agree with this and it goes with my previous paragraph regarding training.
I think there's a danger in assuming that there always is a solution. What if there isn't? We're all here participants in a hobby/lifestyle that many would consider overtly dangerous. Those individuals would argue that the only way to be safe from gun accidents is to never own a gun. However, as folks have stated, including yourself, people are human and make mistakes. Even automobiles, which are very safe by today's standards, cannot prevent a driver from texting while driving or engaging in other distracting behavior. Does that mean we shouldn't drive cars? Either an accident with a firearm or a distracted driver can cause death.
It doesn't even need to be such a case of blatant negligence. I have yet to slam on the gas when meaning to hit the brake. However, others claim to do this in certain incidents. Again, should we not have cars? Now granted today we are incorporating auto-stopping features and maybe someday we will have that with firearms. However that may be a way off. I don't think the desire for safety is bad, but folks are simply expressing the limitations of today's technology and explaining it might not do as you desire and that there are caveats to really any solution.
Lastly, I want to point out that the 4 basic rules of firearm safety are redundant for a reason and that reason is human fallibility. Besides keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to fire, knowing the status of your weapon, not allowing your muzzle to pass something you are willing to destroy and knowing your target and what is beyond it are further means to reduce that chance of bodily injury. Most of the cases I've read here of negligent discharges involve clearing a weapon:
In that case you have to violate more than one of those fundamental rules to injure a person. I have had a negligent discharge in the past. It was quite the wake up call. It happened with a DA/SA S&W 5903 and the pistol was in DA at that point. No one was hurt because I didn't violate more than one of those rules.
As for holding suspects at bay, I imagine this is actually a smaller percentage of negligent discharges than we believe. That said, again as folks have pointed out that even on firearms with a safety:
By practice that safety should be disengaged by the time the muzzle is on the suspect. We've gone over the shooting limitations of DA/SA pistols for users with a lack of training and thumb cocking the first shot would present the same light pull as a SAO pistol, and both of those are typically lighter than a stock trigger weight on a Glock. If the threat is not immediate then that finger MUST be off that rigger, regardless of platform. In classes I have taken they have drilled us on this repeatedly. The officer can also move the firearm to the universal cover position or even a ready position if warranted to partially mitigate the severity of an injury were he/she to discharge the pistol (though this is by no means a solution).
Last edited:
Dragline45
New member
This whole thread is ridiculous. Get over it people, Glock's aren't going anywhere, and for the foreseeable future they will dominate the LEO market, no amount of your ranting will change that.
Like I said earlier I find it amazing how Glock's are thought to be so dangerous because they lack an external saftey, yet you never hear anyone say the same about DA autos or revolvers. For a Glock to discharge that trigger must be pulled whether its consciously or unconsciously, the end result would be the same on say a Sig 226 or S&W revolver. Isn't it funny how DA revolvers with no external saftey have been around for 100 years, yet the issue with no external saftey didn't arise until Glock's hit the market.
For those who think a gun with an external saftey will cut down on ND's are delusional, no amount of gizmos or doo-dads will substitute proper firearms handling.
Like I said earlier I find it amazing how Glock's are thought to be so dangerous because they lack an external saftey, yet you never hear anyone say the same about DA autos or revolvers. For a Glock to discharge that trigger must be pulled whether its consciously or unconsciously, the end result would be the same on say a Sig 226 or S&W revolver. Isn't it funny how DA revolvers with no external saftey have been around for 100 years, yet the issue with no external saftey didn't arise until Glock's hit the market.
For those who think a gun with an external saftey will cut down on ND's are delusional, no amount of gizmos or doo-dads will substitute proper firearms handling.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Exactly!
Well Said!
Eureka!
By George, he's got it.
Elementary, my dear Gaston!
Thanks - Glenn
Well Said!
Eureka!
By George, he's got it.
Elementary, my dear Gaston!
Thanks - Glenn
Does that include the firearms manufacturers that fit external safeties to their handguns, are they delusional why do they fit safeties. ? Everyone agrees that proper training is essential, but what if it is not provided. And I am not just talking about Glocks there are plenty that have copied the Glock operating system, Glock just happen to be the one most used by the police.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but a ten year old could also probably follow that really really basic rule of gun safety. And as you say, it's people who may do things they shouldn't, not guns. Blame-the-gun is the approach the anti-gun people use all the time to restrict our options and freedoms, it's a slippery slope and I personally won't go down it when the solution is so very simple - don't put your finger on the trigger of a loaded or unknown gun unless you are fully prepared for it to fire immediately.
I also don't see how mechanical safeties would do much in these cases. All it takes to un-safe a gun is a flick of the thumb, and if you don't immediately fire it you're now carrying the same dangerous weapon you'd have had without the safety. And if you don't have the discipline to keep your finger off the trigger until you're preparing to fire, how will you have the discipline to never unsafe the gun until you're preparing to fire, and then re-safe it immediately if you don't actually fire?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
They fit safeties as they were demanded by military services. Those were not know to provide intensive or quality pistol training.
Look at the original 1911 designs without thumb safeties. They had grip safeties.
It is hard to see how a grip safety vs. a trigger mounted safety makes a real ND difference.
Various safety systems exist to prevent a dropped gun from going off. There is also some clear ergonomic data that some folks don't understand the various positions of a thumb safety. Is up good or bad? Dot covered means ready to shoot or not? All these have led the untrained to ND when they play with the trigger.
As I and others have said - unless you make the gun so hard to fire in a critical incident due to successive manipulations, you aren't stopping folks who put the finger on the trigger inappropriately.
Thus, pick your risk for a fighting gun. I prefer to train.
Look at the original 1911 designs without thumb safeties. They had grip safeties.
It is hard to see how a grip safety vs. a trigger mounted safety makes a real ND difference.
Various safety systems exist to prevent a dropped gun from going off. There is also some clear ergonomic data that some folks don't understand the various positions of a thumb safety. Is up good or bad? Dot covered means ready to shoot or not? All these have led the untrained to ND when they play with the trigger.
As I and others have said - unless you make the gun so hard to fire in a critical incident due to successive manipulations, you aren't stopping folks who put the finger on the trigger inappropriately.
Thus, pick your risk for a fighting gun. I prefer to train.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
PS - if you are unable to keep your finger off the trigger - never carry a DA revolver as the data are clear than common forces will pull that one also.
There are weird revolvers with manual safeties.
There are weird revolvers with manual safeties.
I'm surprised that, after more than 100 posts, the author's primary recommendation has mostly been lost in the discussion about safeties and a heavier trigger pull. It's not the weight of the trigger pull, it's the trigger pull length because there is a natural instinct to clinch or tighten and, if you have a finger on trigger with a shorter pull, a greater likelihood of an unintentional discharge. Per the article:
I'm not picking on Glock or the SW M&P (I own two). I like carrying 1911s but it would be a horrible mistake, IMO, to issue these as the general purpose sidearm for police agencies. The one Kahr I own has a long, but very smooth and acceptable trigger pull. I'm not specifically suggesting a Kahr but maybe a firearm with a similar type trigger pull would be less prone to discharges.
Everybody agrees more training would help but, as another poster has pointed out, the chances of that happening in most places is slim because of budget constraints and lack of interest on the part of many officers.
I'm not picking on Glock or the SW M&P (I own two). I like carrying 1911s but it would be a horrible mistake, IMO, to issue these as the general purpose sidearm for police agencies. The one Kahr I own has a long, but very smooth and acceptable trigger pull. I'm not specifically suggesting a Kahr but maybe a firearm with a similar type trigger pull would be less prone to discharges.
Gats Italian
New member
Lol. This debate isn't about Glock's market position, it's about their suitability for use in the hands of the undertrained. There seems to be this spurious notion that if a 5.5 lb or 8 lb trigger pull is just as easy to ND as a 10 or 12 lb classic DA revolver trigger pull, that it makes sense to keep plugging away with the lighter one, well, because, Glocks are popular.
That would be because no rational person equates the lighter short stroke trigger pull of a Glock to the longer and heavier DA pull of a service revolver.
The point, which seems to escape you, is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You have bought into, "Glocks are just like mag fed revolvers" when that is just baseless hype.
- Status