Why is this an issue at all?


PDA






bestseller92
August 4, 2008, 05:31 PM
I read a lot of folks carping about the fact that, in order to take down a GLOCK for cleaning, you first have to pull the trigger. They seem to think (or at least to imply) that this is unsafe.

But I don't believe it's an issue at all. In order to safely pull a GLOCK's trigger for takedown, you must first make DANG sure the gun is empty. But if you take down ANY gun for cleaning without FIRST MAKING DANG SURE IT'S EMPTY, you're an idiot.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is this an issue at all?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
davepool
August 4, 2008, 05:38 PM
I agree, the FIRST thing i do when preparing to clean any of my guns is check to see if their loaded....and then i check again....and again, i have three Glocks and i don't have a problem with having to pull the trigger to disassemble them because i always check to see if their loaded, and then i check again...

Mongrel
August 4, 2008, 05:42 PM
Honestly, I think it's the "hall monitor syndrome"...Like when the hall monitor writes you up for running down the hall because the buildings on fire-"but the rules say...."

Overzealousness for the letter of the law without any consideration for the spirit of the law is never a good thing...

wally
August 4, 2008, 05:52 PM
It reduces the safety margin. Thats why its not the best thing design wise. Sure you should damn well be sure your gun is unloaded before cleaning it, but a 1911, Beretta, SIG etc. you can pull off the slide with a chambered round and not have an ND if you don't pull the trigger (which you shouldn't do as part of the normal take down). Glock forces you to pull the trigger making failure to unload the chamber a single point failure for an ND when cleaning. Other guns that you take down without pulling the trigger give a two point failure here -- extra safety margin.

Trying to make things fool proof is doomed to failure as natural selection just produces bigger fools from the ones "fool-proof" designs saved :)

--wally.

bestseller92
August 4, 2008, 05:54 PM
I say it does not reduce the safety margin, because to clean any gun, you first make 100% sure it's empty.

JDoe
August 4, 2008, 05:54 PM
I read a lot of folks carping about the fact that, in order to take down a GLOCK for cleaning, you first have to pull the trigger. They seem to think (or at least to imply) that this is unsafe.

I'm confused. Is there any difference between doing this and dry firing?

rcmodel
August 4, 2008, 05:56 PM
Well, you gotta admit it's not as Foolproof as having to pull the slide back part way, or locked open to get the pin or take-down lever out or turned.

Lots of ND's are caused by not following what to most of us, seem like pretty simple safety rules to follow.

But some folks have trouble doing even that!

Most other firearms designs do not require you to pull the trigger to take them apart!

rcmodel

fineredmist
August 4, 2008, 06:10 PM
The design of the trigger bar / striker is such that the trigger bar must be disengaged from the striker to free the slide to be removed. You must pull the trigger to do that, there is no other way. If you have a problem with the design then don't buy one.

Walkalong
August 4, 2008, 06:40 PM
You have to do the same thing with an XD. What moron would try to disassemble their gun with a round chambered anyway?

Oh yea, the kind that don't think to check the chamber before they start going at it. Silly me.

Like rcmodel said. There are more foolproof ways, but come on.

Darwin Awards comes to mind.

Hawk
August 4, 2008, 06:57 PM
The Glock, perhaps more than most, has led to interesting product development:
http://www.safedirection.com/

My theory is that, due to the number of lurkers and noobs one would guess are reading THR at any given time, many here are profoundly uncomfortable in treating the 4 rules in any manner other than 100% zero tolerance.

'Course that means you'll never clean your Glock and that probably isn't good either.

True catastrophy generally requires the simultaneous shredding of two of the four rules (or two of the three if using a distilled version).
http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html

Zero tolerance makes for a great slogan but it seldom works well in the real world. So long as the "safe direction" rule is intact, and it really is a "safe direction", than actually discharging the thing is acceptable. The only way anyone will know it was unintentional is if your hearing is shot or by examining your laundry. If it doesn't discharge, because it really wasn't loaded (though we had treated as though it were), all's well and we got on with life.

OregonJohnny
August 4, 2008, 07:17 PM
You know, I'm glad someone brought this up. I have to do the same to my SA XD40sc. I just read a gun rag article on the new XDm and apparently, they have changed the design so that pulling the trigger is not necessary to take down the gun. I suppose it's a safety thing, but at first, I thought it was all about dry-firing and possible wear due to the firing pin not contacting anything. I try as hard as I can not to dry-fire my autoloaders, but it's part of the take down of the XD, so I assume it can't be that bad for it or else it wouldn't have been designed that way.

Apart from ALWAYS checking the chamber multiple times before cleaning or even handling my XD, two things come to mind: First, in order to take the gun down, you must rack the slide until it is locked open. Then flip up the take down lever. In the process of doing this, don't you think a round anywhere near the chamber would stick out in your vision like a glaring neon light? Not to mention if a round had been in the chamber, it would be ejected in this process. Second, the loaded chamber indicator on an XD is very noticeable. At least to me. Even if I had triple-checked the chamber, if I saw that little guy sticking up, I'd be alarmed.

I guess you are all right. It's a worry for those who wouldn't check their gun before cleaning it, or if all the above mentioned mechanical operations failed and a loaded round magically stuck in the chamber without notice. Then the dry-firing technique would end in embarassment at the least and death at the most.

CountGlockula
August 4, 2008, 07:29 PM
Agreed. Glocks maybe the only handgun that MAKES you double/triple and quadruple check to make sure it's unloaded.

That's another benefit of Glock's safety system.

In addition, Glocks actually teaches you how to hold a gun. When you experience a stove pipe jam or the slide closes after the last shop; your grip is too loose and your thumb is riding on the slide lock lever.

SuperNaut
August 4, 2008, 07:59 PM
You have to do the same thing with an XD.

Not quite.

I'm sure you already know this but; with the XD you cannot get to the dry-fire step without dropping the mag and pulling the slide back.

Rustynuts
August 4, 2008, 08:25 PM
Sorry, but you CAN dry-fire the XD during disassembly without dropping the mag. It's just that the slide won't come off then! Drop the mag and then it will slide free.

The Tourist
August 4, 2008, 08:28 PM
Well, look at it this way.

If you drop the striker on the last live round, it will then be empty for a more traditional cleaning.:D

possum
August 4, 2008, 08:38 PM
one thing i love about the glock is the ease of maintance and dissasembly, pulling the trigger dosen't bother me, heck i shoot xd's and you have to pull the trigger on them too. make sure you are clear and you are good to go.

DZL HOG
August 4, 2008, 09:05 PM
Doesnt bother me. I have an XD, which sounds like takedown is similar to a Glock. If pulling the trigger is what it takes to make takedown that simple Im all for it.
No trying to hold a slide back a half an inch while I try and drift out out the slide lock. Thats the way my PM9 is, its pretty simple too, but not as simple as an XD. Oh and most of the time I have to pull the trigger on the Kahr as well, if the slide wont come off.

I always rack the slide a few times and look in the chamber before taking a gun down or dry firing. Even after that I dont get in front of the muzzle or point it towards other ppl.

dburkhead
August 4, 2008, 09:06 PM
I look at it this way: people make mistakes. Even the most conscientious people sometimes make mistakes. A procedure that assumes that no mistakes will be made in order to be "safe" is, IMO, a bad procedure. The more mistakes that can be tolerated before "bad things happen" the better.

If you always make absolutely sure the weapon is unloaded before that "pull the trigger" step in Glock takedown, then you're fine. And maybe the mistakes you make will never be that particular one (there are some videos of a guy going, IIRC, by the name of "Mr. Glock" on the internet where he's demonstrating taking down a Glock and his mistake is to forget to pull the trigger at the appropriate step), but can you really guarantee that?

Me, I like multiple backstops. Murphy was an optimist.

tiger rag
August 4, 2008, 10:19 PM
Some folks just like to beat up and find fault in what is a great design.

SuperNaut
August 4, 2008, 10:25 PM
Sorry, but you CAN dry-fire the XD during disassembly without dropping the mag.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have written "during the disassembly procedure" or similar qualifier.

The Lone Haranguer
August 4, 2008, 11:14 PM
I read a lot of folks carping about the fact that, in order to take down a GLOCK for cleaning, you first have to pull the trigger.
Also true of Kahrs, BTW. With either, just be darn sure there is no round in the chamber. :uhoh:

mr.scott
August 4, 2008, 11:19 PM
well just don't be like one guy that I read a thread about that used his hand as a back stop for pulling the trigger on his XD to take the slide off. a .40S&W does some nasty things to hands. He lost a finger for his stupidity.

Skofnung
August 5, 2008, 12:13 AM
I say this as the satisfied owner of two Glocks. It is a bad choice in design.

As competent as you or I may be, as fastidious as we are when checking or triple checking that the gun is unloaded, there are legions of folks out there that are not.

There are better methods for taking down pistols.

Mongrel
August 5, 2008, 12:26 AM
I say this as the satisfied owner of two Glocks. It is a bad choice in design.

As competent as you or I may be, as fastidious as we are when checking or triple checking that the gun is unloaded, there are legions of folks out there that are not.

There are better methods for taking down pistols.

Sincerely, begging your pardon but...

With this line of reasoning we will quickly loose the justification for anyone to own anything that 'may' be dangerous in the hands of those who are not responsible.

Would not the best method be to not allow people to have pistols to begin with? Or perhaps an electric chip in the gun that would lock it out if you didn't have the secret decoder ring on?

People have been shooting themselves (and others unfortunately) with "unloaded" guns since their invention. Every firearm is *inherently* dangerous in the hands of someone who is ignorant or irresponsible to begin with.

We seem to forget that their are thousands of responsible gunowners who go on to the happy hunting ground every year without ever having experienced an "accident" with a firearm. Frankly, you are either responsible or not. Let's not dumb it down any further for those that can't handle it at the expense of those who can.

Honestly, I'm not trying to hassle you about it. It's just the way I see it...

wyocarp
August 5, 2008, 12:50 AM
Well, here in Jackson Hole, a security guard just recently was going to clean his Glock. He dropped the magazine and I guess was going to clear the chamber. He was about to rack the slide and accidentially put a round through his hand.

Eightball
August 5, 2008, 01:41 AM
To get back to the OP:

But if you take down ANY gun for cleaning without FIRST MAKING DANG SURE IT'S EMPTY, you're an idiot.

Thoughts?I agree.

Skofnung
August 5, 2008, 02:23 AM
With this line of reasoning we will quickly loose the justification for anyone to own anything that 'may' be dangerous in the hands of those who are not responsible.


Not at all. Most anything useful is dangerous to some extent; From bullets to garden hoses.

Where did you get the idea that I would disallow Glocks because they are dangerous?

All I am saying is that I think there are better thought out ways of disassembling a gun.

Mongrel
August 5, 2008, 02:52 AM
Sorry...

Long day.

I understand where you are coming from...

Take care

Skofnung
August 5, 2008, 03:25 AM
where do you draw the line?

Who said anything about drawing lines? Are you familiar with the "slippery slope" logical fallacy? I'm afraid you have fallen into one in this case.

It seems that you 'feel' that I am slighting Glocks. Glocks are good guns. As I said, I own two. I wouldn't own them if I thought they were unsafe.

The take down procedure is one of three things that I would change in the basic design of the Glock. Contrary to the marketing hype, Glocks are not perfect.

tipoc
August 5, 2008, 04:02 AM
Why is this an issue at all?

Good question? So what is this discussion about? Some folks continue to act as if guns are unloaded when they actually are loaded and so occasionally shoot someone or something that they don't intend to. This is why the four rules make very good sense. They are used, not because Cooper came up with them, but because they work.

Even when you know that the gun is unloaded if you continue to treat as if it were when it comes to dry firing, practicing a draw, etc. and follow the other three interlocking rules the chances of shooting your T.V., water heater or your neighbor are greatly reduced. So if you have to drop the hammer (or striker) on your piece to safely disassemble it, EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT'S UNLOADED point it in a safe direction.

The overly literal minded don't get the 4 rules ("If I treat my gun as if it's always loaded how can I clean it?"). They are stumped by this. But then the same folks live in fear of removing the tags on their mattresses. You can't help folks cursed with this disease.

tipoc

CajunBass
August 5, 2008, 08:23 AM
Why is it when someone shoots themselves with a..oh..let's say...a Smith & Wesson revolver, they're stupid.

But when they shoot themselves with a GLOCK :what: it's a "poor design"?

I have no idea.

45auto
August 5, 2008, 08:27 AM
"Progress" is good.

The S&W M&P eliminated the Glock "design flaw" of having to pull the trigger to disassemble.

No doubt the next generation of Glocks will have that feature, and others!

dburkhead
August 5, 2008, 09:09 AM
In both the case of the Glock and the example Smith & Wesson revolver, the user almost certainly did the same thing: pulled the trigger. For the revolver, however, there is absolutely no reason to do so during cleaning/maintenance, so it comes down to somebody was playing with it.

1911 guy
August 5, 2008, 11:32 AM
I don't see it as an issue. I've heard of or seen several ND's with other firearms, to include a shot pickup truck (12ga) shot haywagon (.22 rifle) shot hunting cabin roof (7mm Mag) (incidentally, he was "cleaning" it and launched a cleaning rod into orbit, as well as his hunting companions).

Not checking the chamber results in the same loud noises no matter what make, model or caliber the arm happens to be. If you are not going to stow it for use or fire it immediately, render it clear and safe. If you have other bad habits, change them before it's too late.

CJ
August 5, 2008, 11:53 AM
I don't see it as the end of the world, but anything that forces the use of an inherently dangerous action (e.g. pulling the trigger is generally intended to launch a bit of lead) creates room for error.

Imagine if the only way to service the engine on a car were to be sticking your finger in the engine while someone else turns the key...oh, and make sure the battery is disconnected before doing it. It's a stretch of an analogy, but the general primary function of turning the key is to make parts move.

And I don't believe you can chalk everything down to stupidity. People are fallible, and throw in exhaustion, a long day on duty, a wife yelling at you to get your ass home, a requirement to clean your pistol before leaving the range, people talking to you, people yelling at you, and on and on, it becomes difficult to keep track of everything.

For such a user-friendly design, it WAS an interesting design choice, and I hope everyone here remembers to double check that chamber!

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is this an issue at all?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!