Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still a lot of blantant misuse of the word flaw.

Ones opinion of what is and is not a good design choice does not constitute what is or is not flawed.

Most arguments against the glock type action are based on opinion.

The ones that claim to be backed by studies, are using cherry picked data, or data that does not take into account other variables.

The human factor is a huge part of this and can't be lightly tossed aside, but there are many studies that show all firearms designs are vulnerable to human error and simple dumb luck when care is not used.
 
Last edited:
"Flawed design" is not being misused.

All handguns are prone to "accidents" caused by negligent handling practices. . . .

However, some are more susceptible to compounding human error than are others, and those features that increase the chance for an ND can be said to be comparative design flaws vis-a-vis the ones that do not.

For instance, it is entirely arguable, and were it scientifically studied probably proves true, that pulling the trigger for a field strip is more dangerous in terms of ND than those designs which do not require that step for a field strip. The overall numbers of ND in all designs would be low, but my bet is there'd be a statistically significant increase in the trigger pull take down group.

Let's get away from Pintos and Corvairs for a moment. The HMS Hood was a UK battleship of WW2. The ship made way, it floated, it fired, and did all that a warship was expected to do. However, unlike competing designs, it had thin armor over its ammunition magazines, a "glass jaw" as it were. The Hood was blown out of the water by a "lucky" salvo from the Bismarck. How could that not said to be a flawed design?

Likewise, the DeHavilland Comet was one of the first successful jet airliners of the post-war era. However, three of the first few mysteriously broke up in mid-flight. The design used square windows, which caused stress risers that eventually cracked the fuselage and caused the windows to explode out from the internal pressurization. Surely a flawed design, one that was easily remedied by a retrofit and build switch to the ubiquitous oval windows on all airliners of today.

The remedy for many of the documented Glock NDs is already on the market in the S&W M&P, a little sear disconnect doohickey that replaces the requirement to pull the trigger for disassembly. Its very existence makes the case that the Glock way of field stripping has a flawed design element to it.
 
Officers do put their fingers on the trigger under stress and the factors that cause them to ND can override the trigger pull difference in the 1911s, DA/SA, DAO, Striker and DA revolvers. Thus, that argument about trigger pull is not really that useful. One NYPD incident was with a NYPD modified trigger Glock.

The other criticism of guns that require a trigger pull for cleaning, etc. - that's a legit concern as we have folks who don't train, don't read the manuals, etc. All guns are subject to stupid.

Designing to avoid common mistakes is sensible.

That's a human factors design problem and not the same as the Comet windows. As far as UK battle cruisers blowing up - that's a debate over design vs. human factors. In some cases, ships took the same damage but didn't blow up. The ones that did might have had ammo improperly stored and staged to cause the chain reaction explosion. Might different armor arrangements prevent a 15 inch round from hitting the ammo - we don't know.

To conclude - we have two sources of NDs:

a. Trigger control - we see that if the gun is hot (meaning ready to fire), trigger pull is largely irrelevant from the research.

b. Disassembly stupidity - As JohnKsa pointed out, that is not uncommon to have to pull the trigger. Might that be changed, not unreasonable. I do think that if a gun needs a tool for such, that's a pain and could lost in field conditions.
 
What you described for the ship and aircraft are completely different than the issues you bring up from the glock.

For the aircraft... That was a design flaw that lead to structural failures.

For the ship, that is a design flaw in that it failed to perform to expectations.

At no point is user error a factor in the failur for either of those examples.


For a glock no one is saying that the design does not require more diligence on the users part to be safe... Only that such a design is not a design flaw.

It is mear opinion that such a design is a "flaw"... At best it can be argued that such a design is less safe due to reliance on the user to follow all steps properly... It cannot be argued as flawed.

But way way too much of life relies on exactly that to ensure safety of everyone. The proper use and following of the rules by the user.

Cars are a big example, but they are far from alone in this.
 
That's a debate about the pragmatic and normative.

Normative - everyone should train and practice.
Pragmatic - many are idiots.

What are the risk ratios and predicted outcomes for designing to be idiot proof vs. having a good useful product for those who will read the manual and practice?

I'm on the side of the Glock manual of arms not being that difficult. But if there was an easy fix for taking it apart without a trigger pull, I'd do it for the idiots.

I note that even the best can become an idiot on a given day. Seen it.
 
Limnophile said:
...damage done by using a product outside of its intended purpose is the fault of the user, not the product designer or manufacturer. There are limits, however. Take Q-Tips. They are packaged with a clear disclaimer that they are not intended to be used in the ear canal, despite that that is exactly how most of them are used.
Click to expand...
What, people use those silly little things for purposes other than cleaning guns?!? :confused:

That must explain why stores put them in the Cosmetic section rather than in Sporting Goods! I get it now! :D

(Pardon the sidetrack, thought this thread could use it.) ;)
 
That's ok . Don't let on that they can be used for guns as Diane Feinstein and NY state will ban them - esp. if they can break your tympanic membrane.

Is there anything new to be said, except for wanting to push YOUR particular point of view?
 
For a glock no one is saying that the design does not require more diligence on the users part to be safe... Only that such a design is not a design flaw.
Click to expand...

I brought up the ship and the plane because no matter where the seeds of disaster lay in their designs, they were eventually doomed to an adverse outcome when used as intended.

A Glock may be used as intended in total safety, but there is a big assumption in that—that the operator is 100 percent reliable 100 percent of the time. History demonstrates that type of presumption to be false no matter the training level of the operator of a given machine, system, what have you.

Pulling the trigger for disassembly is a design flaw on two readily foreseeable human reliability criteria:

1) doesn't account for use while user is an adverse internal state, (fatigued, distracted, hurried, etc., whether such stressors are objective or not).

2) doesn't make any allowance for poor user practices, (untrained, undertrained, overconfident of actual ability).

This gets at the crux of the debate. The Glock design presupposes "perfect" operator use in at least two of its main details—In clearing prior to disassembly, and in avoiding NDs when presented to fire.

As there are easily foreseen circumstances and real world experience to draw from that present that less than ideal operator input is to be expected, and perhaps even the norm, the standard Glock can be said to be a flawed design.
 
At best we can talk about risk mitigation with pistols.

Some may be better than others in various ways, but all are susceptible to human failings on the part of the user. There is only so much that can be done with firearms to mitigate risk.


IMHO, other than the need to pull the trigger to disassemble the pistol, I think the Glock trigger system is safer than many other striker designs like the 330, VP9, M&P, and others.


Personally I have never been a big fan of glocks due to the ergonomics. Its only the gen 4 version that has convinced me to get one, and I do like it, but prefer other pistols due to various mostly ergonomic related reasons.

Your second point of NDs when presented to fire, is pretty much nonexistent as has been pointed out several times already... That when used properly, every pistol is subject to ND on part of the user when in the users hand.

Fingers resting on triggers even on DAO pistols, is a recipe for problems. Safeties are not used in the manner you think they are... All trainers in the US advocate disabling the safety on the draw for a myriad of practical reasons.

A safety will not prevent it... A heavy trigger will not prevent it... User error can trump all attempts to thwart it. There is absolutely no substitute for training... Or at least reading the manual.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of designs of machines which were just not a safe idea like the doors of the vehicle opening up the other way or what they called "suicide doors". Of course, we should not open up our doors into traffic but so many people do so much that these style of doors is no longer made. Another set of instructions not followed at times is look both ways before crossing the street. Humans will always make mistakes even with the simplest contraptions and instructions.

The right word is the Glock is simply not as idiot resistant as I like. Someone is always going to make a mistake with it. There is always that one guy who no matter what you train them to do simply wont or cant follow such simple instructions as dont put your finger on the trigger.

Im not at all saying to regulate Glocks. No way. They just need to be made more resistant to simple mistakes.
 
The right word is the Glock is simply not as idiot resistant as I like
Click to expand...
It certainly easy to see your concern with this!
That was just way to easy!!!:D

BTW, you still haven't pointed out any design flaws that are substantiated by facts. Only your personal opinion.
 
You may have started this mess, but your arguments have been more reasoned than many on here.

Its entirely possible that a few tweeks can be made to the glock to allow for a triggerless disassembly method, and maybe glock will do so in the next generation.
 
To the OP, you have missed the point, if you differentiate Glocks from other guns, on the issue of finger on the trigger.

That has been debunked. Since, we have come full circle and seeming the discussion has passed some by - I'm calling this one.

I guess we can't expect people to read manuals, if they don't read the discussions and evidence on the issue.

Closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top