Top police gun prone to accidental firing


PDA






TheFederalistWeasel
December 29, 2003, 11:26 AM
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
The Detroit News ^ | December 15, 2003 | Melvin Claxton


Top police gun prone to accidental firing

But Glock gags those who have settled suits

By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News

When police Officer Randall Smith was accidentally shot in the head by a fellow officer with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in 1995, he sued the gun maker, claiming the weapon was defectively designed and unnecessarily dangerous.

Glock settled the lawsuit. But for the rest of his life, Smith, whose injuries left him permanently brain damaged and cost him his police job in Birmingham, Ala., is barred from talking about the case or revealing any details he learned about Glock before the settlement. His lawyer also is barred from talking, restricted by a confidentiality agreement that is a standard policy for Glock when settling lawsuits.

Glock’s and other gun manufacturers’ insistence on confidentiality agreements is common in product liability settlements. The agreements have kept critical information about the safety record of the gun from the public and are a prime example of how the gun industry actively conceals information about injuries and fatalities connected with its products. The industry has done so with the help of Congress and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.

Like other gun makers, Glock is not required to report complaints and injuries to any federal or state agency. And Glock cannot be compelled to inform gun buyers of problems others have had with its weapons.

The News documented more than 50 lawsuits against Glock in the past eight years. In those with confirmed settlements, Glock insisted on confidentiality agreements.

Despite the agreements, Glock pistols, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation’s police departments, have earned a reputation among some gun experts as a firearm with too few safety features and that is too quick to fire. Its reputation is directly linked to its design, which ignores important safety features.

The no-frills, lightweight polymer-frame semiautomatic pistol forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution. The Glock will fire if the trigger is moved less than a half an inch, compared to twice that distance for most other police guns.

And some Glocks will shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger — light enough for a 5-year-old to fire the gun. Glock started offering optional trigger pulls of up to 12 pounds in the mid-1990s after the New York City Police Department — plagued by a string of police shootings — demanded a heavier trigger.

The gun has no manual safety to prevent it from firing if the trigger is accidentally pulled. In fact, the gun’s safety features — extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit — automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.

In addition, most Glocks have no indicator that shows the guns are loaded and no magazine safety to prevent them from firing when the ammunition clip is removed. And unlike many other guns, the Glock is always semicocked and ready to shoot. This inner tension in its firing mechanism increases the likelihood of discharge if the trigger is accidentally moved, some gun experts say.

"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."

Gun’s sensitive trigger endangers police officers

With so few Glock victims able to talk freely, details of injuries must often be obtained from police reports, eyewitness statements and court documents that haven’t been sealed. These sources paint a picture of a gun that has severely injured police officers.

In many instances, the injuries are devastating and permanent.

Take the case of Jimmy Pope. The former Jackson, Miss., police officer was shot in the face when a Glock being cleaned in another room by his roommate and fellow officer, Von Ware, accidentally discharged. The bullet went through Pope’s bedroom wall and the headboard of his bed before hitting him.

Pope lost an eye in the 1993 shooting and suffered extensive facial injuries.

Detroit police have had their share of Glock injuries, although police officials insist there have been very few instances of unintentional discharges with the gun.

Within two years of switching to the Glocks in 1992, two officers shot themselves in their legs and another was shot in the buttocks. And in July, Detroit Officer Michael Allen, 22, was shot in the leg, the bullet hitting the bone. His Glock accidentally fired as he tried to put it under the seat after his car was pulled over by customs inspectors on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge.

Police shooting themselves in their legs with Glocks is so prevalent, said firearms consultant and former Guns and Ammo editor Whit Collins, that gun experts describe the phenomenon as "Glock leg."

The list of Glock victims includes veteran police and experienced gun handlers — people like former U.S. Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training.

In March 1996, Roth was tightening his belt in a mall restroom in Buffalo, N.Y., when the Glock tucked in his waistband accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg.

Investigators believed the gun’s trigger caught in his clothing, causing the gun to fire. Roth sued Glock, blaming the gun’s light, short trigger pull and lack of a manual safety for the shooting.

Glock settled the case, but again killed any publicity by demanding Roth and his attorney sign a strict confidentiality agreement barring them from talking about the shooting.

For some police officers like Terry Turner of Beaumont, Texas, such shootings prove career-ending. Turner had his leg amputated last year after he was shot in the thigh when his Glock accidentally discharged as he placed it in his holster.

Accidental firings hurt suspects, bystanders

It isn’t just police officers who are getting hurt in accidental Glock shootings. Suspects, innocent bystanders and even spouses sometimes are caught in the line of fire.

That was the case in August when Woonsocket, R.I., police Lt. Walter Warot accidentally shot himself in the buttocks and slightly wounded the person sitting next to him.

Warot, who was sitting on a granite bench outside Providence Superior Court at the time, was adjusting a Glock tucked in his waistband when it discharged. An employee of the attorney general’s office sitting next to him was nicked by flying fragments of granite from the shot’s impact.

Other victims of Glock shootings have not been so lucky. Elroy Gonzalez was shot in the head and seriously injured in 1996 while being arrested by a Kentucky police officer for allegedly possessing a small amount of marijuana. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire his gun.

Ronnie Earl Kimbrell was shot in the back by a South Carolina state trooper in 1995 while being arrested for an alleged traffic violation. The trooper said he was trying to handcuff Kimbrell when he accidentally fired his gun.

James Lancaster was killed Aug. 8, 1996, after a sheriff’s deputy unintentionally shot him. At the time he was shot, Lancaster was being forced to the ground after a 20-mile car chase. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire the weapon.

Company holds gun users responsible for safety

One of the biggest safety criticisms leveled against Glock is the company’s refusal to put a manual safety on its guns. Glock developed a safety for its guns years ago, but never made it available to the public.

Glock built the safety for guns manufactured for the Finnish military, the gun maker’s general counsel and vice president Paul F. Jannuzzo revealed in a deposition. He said the company made 50 such pistols.

Like so many things about Glock, information about the manual safety remains shielded from the public. And despite the benefits many see in the feature, no agency has the power to compel the manufacturer to add it to its guns.

In 2002, Glock introduced an optional safety feature — a built-in safety lock — for some of its guns.

In announcing the locks, Glock acknowledged that gun manufacturers can design firearms with features that make them safer to keep in homes with children.

"The beauty of the Glock locking system is it is simple and safe," an article in last year’s Glocks Autopistols magazine stated. "It is the perfect system for someone without a strong background in firearms training and is dealing with the conflict of having young children in the home while feeling a great need for a tool that would enable them to maintain control when physically threatened with criminal intrusion."

But the gun maker’s Web site states the company’s philosophy that firearms safety is ultimately the responsibility of gun owners.

"Firearm safety is up to you, the end-user," Gaston Glock states in a message to customers on his company’s Web site. "The safe handling of firearms, like morality, cannot be legislated into existence. Only firearms users can make the safe use and storage of firearms a reality."

Weapon easily converted into full automatic mode

One of the Glock’s most frightening attributes is its ability to easily be converted into a full automatic weapon capable of firing at the rate of 1,000 rounds a minute.

Glock has issued no warnings and made no changes in its design that would prevent its weapons from being converted into submachine guns.

Experts say the problem can be corrected with minor changes in how Glock pistols are made.

A full automatic Glock will fire 33 bullets in seconds with one trigger pull. And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts. It is a well-documented danger known to law enforcement.

"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise," states an advisory on the Association of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Web site that lists dangerous or defective guns.

"The conversion from standard to fully automatic is fast and simple, requiring no technical expertise. The conversion is accomplished merely by swapping one piece for the other. A ‘real pro’ can make the switch in 15 seconds."

The easy conversion is no surprise, experts say. Gaston Glock, who designed the gun that bears his name, relied heavily on the technology behind the German Heckler and Koch VP 70 submachine gun when creating his weapon, Glock’s 1990 U.S. patent shows.

If you enjoyed reading about "Top police gun prone to accidental firing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Quartus
December 29, 2003, 11:34 AM
Hmmm. no safeties? All you have to do is pull the trigger?


That's every bit as dangerous as a DA revolver!:what:

10-Ring
December 29, 2003, 12:01 PM
I would also bet that because there are alot of Glock pistols, carried by alot of diff't people & alot of diff't agenicies, your numbers will be slightly skewed. I would also bet that before Glock, a diff't company held the distinction of being most prone to AD's. I'm not a big fan of Glocks, but if used properly & carried responsibly, they shouldn't be any more prone to the AD than any other handgun.

TheeBadOne
December 29, 2003, 12:13 PM
The Glock is a fine firearm and one of the very few "Combat Pistols" available.
What is a "Combat Pistol"? It's one where all you have to do to put it into action is pull the trigger. Presented with a threat? Draw, aim, pull trigger, BANG.
That is all by design. Don't put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot. As pointed out, that's been the same for revolvers for 100+ years.

TBO

Tropical Z
December 29, 2003, 12:22 PM
One part change for full auto? How would the BATF allow the sale of Glocks if its that easy?:confused:

SigLaw
December 29, 2003, 12:29 PM
My brief e-mail to Mr. Claxton (see below). While I am not a big fan of Glocks, I do own one, I do think it is incumbent upon us to "call out" such biased articles.


Dear Mr. Claxton:

I recently read your December 15, 2003 article regarding Glock handguns. I am disappointed that a major metropolitan newspaper would allow such a biased article to appear in any section other than the editorials.

First of all, I own a Glock handgun, among a number of guns that I own, it is far from my favorite but I am at least familiar with its operations. From your "reporting" it does not appear as if you have ever operated a Glock handgun.

Glock handguns do not "shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger" unless modified by the end-user. They are not shipped from the factory that way.

Glock safeties "automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed." Isn't that the point. How is the gun supposed to fire if the safeties are operable when the trigger is depressed. Which brings up a key point, the gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled, plain and simple. If you do not intend to fire do not pull the trigger.

A number of examples of accidental discharges cited in your article are more correctly negligent discharges. For instance, "when the Glock tucked in his waistband accidentally discharged." You should not be tucking a Glock in your waistband without a using a proper holster to secure and guard the trigger. There is no indication this person was using a holster. Another example, "when a Glock being cleaned in another room by his roommate and fellow officer, Von Ware, accidentally discharged." Number one rule, always assume a gun is loaded until you verify otherwise. This would be true regardless of whether there is a loaded chamber indicator or not. Mr. Von Ware violated this rule. Mr. Von Ware should have dropped the magazine from the gun and then racked the slide to check the chamber, at that point the round would have been ejected and the pistol ready for cleaning. Mr. Von Ware's failure to do so resulted in the discharge.

I could go on but I assume you get the point I am making.

Finally, as a practicing attorney that has handled numerous product liability cases, none firearm related, I must say that confidentiality clauses are the norm. This does not normally prevent other plaintiffs from obtaining information regarding other claims. It merely prevents plaintiffs from discussing the claims. It is generally an effort to ward off copy claims that may have no merit based on the mere fact the company settled a prior lawsuit.

I look forward to your reply.

HankB
December 29, 2003, 12:30 PM
Ummm . . . a firearm that will ONLY fire when the trigger is pulled is NOT inferior or defective, provided it does so reliably.

As for "Glock Leg" among police officers . . . it's my observation that when it comes to firearms skill, there are very few "average" officers. Virtually all I've encountered fall into the "pretty darn good" category or "godawfully bad" category . . . with the vast majority in the latter. Some veteran police firearms instructors I've met (at the range, of course!) have agreed.

If you took a random selection of, say, 100 cops, and put them through the ordinary IDPA classifier, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find two thirds (or more!) of them in the "novice" category.

SDC
December 29, 2003, 12:30 PM
Seems like that headline should read "Improperly trained police officers are prone to shooting themselves accidentally", no? But, that wouldn't sell papers :rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
December 29, 2003, 12:34 PM
Strange. My 18 yr. old Glock 17 has only discharged when I have placed my finger on the trigger and pulled it to the rear. Sounds like some folks trying to blame the manufacturer for their own violations of the 4 rules.

Crownvicman
December 29, 2003, 12:36 PM
All of these ADs seem to be the result of poor gun handling and plain negligence on the part of the user. Guns are not idiot proof.

QuarterBoreGunner
December 29, 2003, 12:40 PM
"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise," states an advisory on the Association of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Web site that lists dangerous or defective guns.

Hmmm. I'm thinking of a term here, let's see now, what was it? Oh yeah:

***?

I guess when I re-qual'd or my CCW earlier this month, I guess the Sheriff's Office didn't get the memo, and signed off on my 'machine gun' Glock 30.

Ok everybody, let's say it together:

FOUR RULES!! ALL THE TIME! Is that so hard to remember?

Mike Irwin
December 29, 2003, 12:50 PM
When the Washington Metro police adopted Glocks back in the early 1990s, it also coincided with a serious drop in funds available for training and an influx of substandard recruits brought onto the force under court orders.

The result was that the number of unintentional/accidental/negligent discharges skyrocketed, and stayed at very high levels for several years.

One of the training instructors (a friend of mine) shot himself in the hand during a demonstration and badly injured two fingers.

That's how bad things were -- that the instructors weren't properly instructed on how to teach the new weapon.

ballistic gelatin
December 29, 2003, 12:51 PM
I want to know more about this mystery part that only takes seconds to switch out. What is it and where do I get it? For educational purposes only, of course.

El Tejon
December 29, 2003, 12:55 PM
QBG, all too often it is too hard for them to remember. Heck even here at THR people boast of their ignorance of the Four Rules.:(

Seems to be a lot of tucking in the waistband going on out there in po-po land.:rolleyes: Far too many gun rags being read by coppers apparently. I wonder how many of these 50 individuals stated those famous words, "it's all I need" when told by their more knowledgable co-workers to buy a holster???

Memo to police: 1. do not just stick the pistol in your waistband or pocket. There are these things called holsters, use them. 2. Learn the Four Rules and abide by them, especially #3.:D

BenW
December 29, 2003, 12:58 PM
In fact, the gun’s safety features..... automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.
In other news, gravity causes stuff to fall.

QuarterBoreGunner
December 29, 2003, 01:17 PM
El T: I remember when I took my NRA hunter safety course many many years ago. At the time as I recall, they had TEN rules for handling firearms. When I first became aware of the four rules, I was like WOOHOO! Smaller! Better! Faster!

There's a THR member (don't remember who, but props to him) that has a sig line that goes 'I'm not sure what to think about people that have handguns without holster wear.' I kind of like that.

When I was still in the business, it always amused me when a customer would drop $600 - $800 on a hi-end pistol and then balk at a paying $50 - $100 on a quality holster and belt.

I want to know more about this mystery part that only takes seconds to switch out. What is it and where do I get it? For educational purposes only, of course.

And is it something I can construct out of common household items?/MacGyver

jnb01
December 29, 2003, 01:35 PM
For a department facing media and legal scrutiny, I would suspect that it's ALOT easier to label their equipment as unsafe rather than the offending officer. However, many departments do indeed T&E their pistols prior to making a selection, so why then would they knowingly adopt an "unsafe" design in the first place? Similar to this, is the department which would rather buy the latest greatest fad caliber after a failure to stop in the field, instead of actually training their officers how to shoot and possibly upgrading the issued ammunition. Unfortunately, it seems many departments are not afforded the budget or time needed to properly train their officer's to begin with, wether it be safety practices, weapons retention, or how to shoot and effectively place their shots.

It's quite simple to explain really. We live in a time when many folks simply do not want to take responsibility for their own negligent or irresponsible actions. From the individual who sue's McDonald's because their obese, to blaming a lifeless object for an officer's improper gunhandling practices or the departments failure to provide adequate training. We also live in a time when many companies or in this case departments, would rather save a buck than do a job properly, and with the required time and resources.

I wonder what or who gets the blame when a Glock is fitted with a NY1 (8-lb.) or NY2 (12-lb.) trigger as many LE versions are? I would wager it would still be the Glock. :rolleyes:

Bottom line.........NO firearm is safe, in unsafe/untrained hands!

jnb01

BigG
December 29, 2003, 01:39 PM
Remember how the FIB blamed the nine after the Miami debacle? Politically driven cover @$$ tactic.

George Hill
December 29, 2003, 01:54 PM
While I am no personal fan of Glock pistols, and laughed some during the reading of this article... I have to admit that this article is some patently pathetic journalism.

I've been shooting for decades, I've worn a badge and I've owned a Glock, and I know a lot of active police officers... and I have never heard the term "Glock Leg". Weatherby Eyebrow, yeah... Glock Leg? No.

The entire article is made to sound as if a Glock pistol is an accident waiting to happen, and puts all accidental shootings as a result of Glock's evil entent to hurt police officers and then they *Gasp* put gag orders on all settled cases! *shocked*

Questions for this jaded journalist:
1. Is it not common practice to put nondisclousure clauses in all settlements?
2. It is not a problem of training to teach officers to keep their damned fingers off the trigger until the copper is ready to bust the cap?
3. Have any of these accidents occured when the copper kept his finger off the trigger?
4. Is it not common practice to put blaim on something that can't defend it's self, like a gun, instead of admiting that one is a dumbass and shot himself in the leg?

I feel for the injured... and sympathize with the man with a limp that thought it cool to carry a 3.5 pound triggered Glock on duty and still didn't have the self control to keep his finger out of the trigger guard. I really do. Unfortunately this isn't an indictment on Glock, but an indictment on police officer's standards of training. If these cops are too dimm to handle a Glock, perhaps they are too dim to handle a gun with an external safety too. Perhaps even the classic old Double Action Revolver is too much for them as well. Perhaps - it is best that they not be working as police officers. Professional Darwinism at work.

I think this might also be an indication of poor highering practices by departments...
I've seen far too many chess club geeks who have never even held a real gun before get police jobs while guys that served in the military, been shooters all their lives and have never been further then 6 feet away from a gun since they were 15, get skipped over because the geek had 2 more years of college. Schooling is fine - higher education is a good thing - but personally I'd rather see the guy with the street smarts get the job rather than the guy with the book smarts.

Mike Irwin
December 29, 2003, 02:07 PM
"Remember how the FIB blamed the nine after the Miami debacle?"

No, the gun press blamed the 9mm. Lots of hooting and hollering and column inches.

The FBI decided that it needed to get A) something more effective in adverse conditions, and B) revamp its training protocols.

It tried to do A, it did do B.

dhoomonyou
December 29, 2003, 02:23 PM
Finger pulls trigger, Glock goes BANG.
DUH!?!

MrAcheson
December 29, 2003, 03:15 PM
Yeah police guns in general are prone to accidental firing. The problem with the Glock is a sympton of poor training. The Glock is often billed as a great gun for novices. It is not. A Glock will fire if you pull the trigger (the safety widget on the trigger is practically worthless) which means if someone screws up, someone can get hurt. Not only is it possible to pull the trigger holstering/drawing the gun (not that hard if you don't have a good holster), but you also can forget to clear the chamber when you pull the trigger to field strip it. Its time for LEOs to reform their training programs to higher standards to compensate for these issues.

As for the glock, its not for me. If I was going to buy a polymer nine it would probably be an XD9. The added redundancy of the grip safety is a nice and worthwhile feature to me when handling the gun. Plus the XD still has the same point and shoot functionality. But thats me not you. You make your choices and take your chances.

TonyB
December 29, 2003, 03:43 PM
Run for your lives it's a GLOCK.......I'm so sick of hearing this crap....this is exactly what's wrong w/ people today..."it's not MY fault,it must be made wrong..." BS........learn how to use you freaking gun!!!!Now people are human,but when YOU make a mistake,be a man and admit it......"I had my finger on the trigger"....just once I'd love to hear someone be honest about these episodes.......ok I'll take my Meds now....................:banghead:

TheFederalistWeasel
December 29, 2003, 03:48 PM
Remember fellas there is a reason Glock is carried by 129% of all LEO’s this side of Proxima Centauri…………… PRICE!

I’m in Law Enforcement and a lot of cops I know shoot Glocks, one because it’s what the department issues, two, it’s what most cops carry and ironically it’s what they can afford on a cops salary. Plus Glock will sell me a new G22 for three bills and some change with purchase order and letterhead request.

Personally I carry a Sig, I’m not the best shooter around hell I’m probably not even good by most standards of those self professed DELTA/SEAL/IPDA/CIA Snipers here, but I chose my sidearm because it’s safe, comfortable and it’s what I know price was the last issue, so I carry a SIG P226 Stainless with nitesights.

LE Agencies don’t do that, they look at price first and the lowest bidder wins, hence Glock.

El Tejon
December 29, 2003, 04:05 PM
Fed's dead on. However, I carried a Glock as a LEO, but I won mine.:D

michiganfan
December 29, 2003, 04:14 PM
I holster and un holster my Glock at least once every day. I load and unload at least once everyday. I never place my finger on the trigger or near the trigger during this process. I realize the consequences of becoming careless or complacent during this procedure. At the very least a failure to follow this would be tremendously embarrassing and at the worst fatally tragic.

Jeff White
December 29, 2003, 04:22 PM
Glock's aggresive marketing has more to do with why they are used by so many police departments then any other factor. We traded our S&W 5906s for Glock 21s for the same cash price it would have cost to replace the night sights on the Smiths. That is the only reason we have the Glocks. It was a way to get the bigger caliber without the financial outlay. We were facing replacement of all the night sights anyway, so it allowed us to have .45s for the same money.

That said, the Glock, like every other firearm is as safe as the user makes it. If you pull the trigger before you are ready to shoot, it will fire.

The newspaper is arguing for a technological solution to a training problem...we all know how well that usually works out. :rolleyes:

Jeff

Sleuth
December 29, 2003, 04:27 PM
I don't like Glocks, never have (I got to shoot one of the 1st ones in the country). But, as others have pointed out, these are almost all operator errors.

My favorite was the Stupidvisor in my old agency who bought a Glock, qualified with it, loaded it, and put it back in the box - you know, the box with the big sticker that said "DON'T PUT A LOADED GUN IN HERE". He then put the box in the trunk of his GOV vehicle. When he slammed the trunk lid, the gun went BANG, and shot through the back of the trunk & hit him in the leg. He deserved it!

Tropical Z
December 29, 2003, 04:43 PM
I gotta admit that regardless of how well the safety between your ears is working,i prefer a gun that has a manual safety that has to be consciously released before shooting.If i ever carried my 21 (which i wouldnt) there wouldnt be a round in the chamber until im ready to pull the trigger.Young kids have been killed by loaded chamber Glocks and we all know it.They may not have died in the same situation if the gun was an XD or 1911 or Hi-Power for that matter.

rock jock
December 29, 2003, 04:55 PM
The Glock is often billed as a great gun for novices. It is not.
A Glock was the first handgun I ever fired or owned. Never had a problem with it. It is a great handgun for a novice who is very conscientious about safety.

those self professed DELTA/SEAL/IPDA/CIA Snipers here
Hey, you left out us Ninja Secret Berets!

QuarterBoreGunner
December 29, 2003, 04:59 PM
TropicalZ- well I carry a Glock 30 everyday and it doesn't bother me a bit. I use a good holster that covers the trigger guard completely and I damn well keep my trigger finger away from the trigger when holstering and un-holstering.
Yes I agree that the best safety is the one between the users ears, but I have to disagree on the use of this example:

'Young kids have been killed by loaded chamber Glocks and we all know it'

for one simple reason. It's the owners responsibility to secure the weapon when it's not in their direct control. Would a revolver be any safer than a Glock if found by a child? The lack of a manual safety on the Glock doesn't even come into play in your example. Sure they may not have died if the firearm in question had a manual safety but I'd be more concerned with the fact that I'd left an UNSECURED LOADED FIREARM out where children could have access to it.

edited: Forgot to add that absolutely I carry one in the chamber. If the bad guy somehow get the jump on me, I'm already WAY behind the reaction curve. Having to rack the slide to chamber a round will simply put me further down a progressingly bad situation. My $.02

Hkmp5sd
December 29, 2003, 05:17 PM
i prefer a gun that has a manual safety that has to be consciously released before shooting.
Don't like revolvers too much, eh? :)

I thought one of the reasons LEOs went to Glocks is because their operation most closely follows that of a revolver (ie aim at BG, put finger on trigger, pull trigger, Bang!), making the transition from wheel guns to autoloaders easier and safer.

TheFederalistWeasel
December 29, 2003, 05:30 PM
It may have been one factor but I would bet you lunch the main force behind the run to Glock was money.

Lowest bidder wins.

rock jock
December 29, 2003, 05:36 PM
Lowest bidder wins.
I think you mean "after reliability and safety have met minimum standards." Otherwise, all you LEOs would be carrying Lorcins or Ravens. :D

Tropical Z
December 29, 2003, 05:40 PM
I should have clarified that i prefer a manual safety on my semi autos.A revolver in many situations WOULD be safer than a Glock if found by a child simply because of the finger strength needed to pull the trigger.If a three year old doesnt know how to place a double action revolver into single action they may not be able to discharge the gun.Same logic goes for a single action revolver.

Jeff White
December 29, 2003, 05:46 PM
Hkmp5sd said;

I thought one of the reasons LEOs went to Glocks is because their operation most closely follows that of a revolver (ie aim at BG, put finger on trigger, pull trigger, Bang!), making the transition from wheel guns to autoloaders easier and safer.

Not really. The big changeover occurred in the late 80s and early 90s. Smith and Wesson 3d Generation Auto, Beretta 92 series and HK all made pretty big inroads into LE service. Glock started their big campaign to be number 1 in the US LE market in the mid 90s. They literally swapped 1 for 1 with several large agencies. This was a good deal for their distrubtors as they took in a lot of good condition standard capacity autos with usually 3 or more verified pre-ban standard capacity magazines in trade. In some cases the pre-ban mags were worth as much as the weapon. An unintended consequence of the AWB.

Jeff

El Tejon
December 29, 2003, 06:04 PM
Speaking of Glocks and LE, here's a really goofy thing from my old agency: Glocks were okey-dokey, but 1911s were not as they contained a "cocked hammer."

*Sigh* Only here.:uhoh:

Jeff White
December 29, 2003, 06:18 PM
Now El-Tejon, you know it was because the sheeple (epecially the ones who worked in administration ;)) could see the cocked hammer on the 1911. Out of sight out of mind with the Glock. That's if they even knew how the Glock action works to start with....

Jeff

Mikul
December 29, 2003, 06:24 PM
Glock made its inroads into LE by offering substantial discounts and by touting all of it's internal safety features. Not only is it safe, but you don't even have to THINK about the safety. This is like airbags and ABS systems in cars. The object is so safe that people feel more comfortable doing stupid things with them.

I know a cop that carries his Glock without a holster. He should know better because he personally knows another cop that shot herself by, ahem, holstering her Glock in the front of her pants.

Y'all knew it was just a matter of time. The next gun will be one with a 12 pound trigger AND a safety: probably a Sig, who will then be sued because the SAFETY didn't work. <seething sarcasm>Not that an officer would forget to engage it.

Of course with all of those safety features some silly officer might feel comfortable just handing a loaded gun to a class full of schoolchildren. Nah, that's just ridiculous.</seething sarcasm>

355sigfan
December 29, 2003, 06:26 PM
Training is the answer to these NEGLIGENT discharges not a new gun. Glocks are an excellent pistol for a novice and for the rank and file. Just teach them to keep their finger off the trigger. 1911's are more a experts handgun. I have no real use for all the da sa or dao guns.
Pat

Greg Bell
December 29, 2003, 06:44 PM
Awesome, a new insulting Glock term I didn't invent.

"Glock leg" the pseudo-gang limp developed by Glock owners who self-perforate.

"Glogic" Moronic sub-argument used by Glocksters. see "No finger no boom."

"My gun Glocked" Jam.


GHB

Kjay
December 29, 2003, 07:13 PM
I'm familiar with two University/Collge police departments safety records for the last 10 or so years. One accidental discharge and self-wounding, with a Beretta 92. No AD's with current issue Glocks. Seems a training not a tech issue. :rolleyes:

jnb01
December 29, 2003, 07:14 PM
We have two instances, one involving an "experienced gun handler", in which both individuals had loaded Glocks "tucked" into their waistbands. This begs the question, were these weapons in a holster, or were they carried mexican-style, which is frowned upon by Glock inc. and any intelligent firearms instructor, unless carrying with an empty chamber as some folks do. (Glock's fault, or prehaps a poor choice of carry mode given the pistol's manual of arms?)

We have another instance involving an officer cleaning a "loaded" Glock in another room, resulting in the shooting of his roomate. (Glocks fault, or the fault of the officer for not following proper procedures and the manual's directions by unloading the pistol and clearing the chamber prior to cleaning and maintenance?)

We have another instance in which it would appear that the officer attempted to reholster his weapon with his finger indexing the trigger. (Glocks fault, or the fault of the officer for not following remedial gun safety rules by keeping his finger clear of the trigger if not intending to fire the weapon?)

In yet another questionable incident, we have an officer attempting to handcuff a suspect with one hand, while still holding a loaded weapon, and his weapon discharges. It seems most officers either holster their weapons first, or another officer is covering the suspect while a fellow officer handcuffs the perp. This could also potentially pose a weapons retention problem should the BG resist, as the officer only has one hand controlling the pistol vs. reholstering his weapon and applying the retention strap. (Again, is this Glocks fault, or that of the officer?)

Additionally, instead of capitalizing on the inherently dangerous design as this article indicates, several manufacturers are now utilizing a "Glock like" trigger mechanism. This includes Sig (DAK or K trigger), HK (LEM), Walther (Quick Action), Kahr (light DAO), and the Springfield XD (USA trigger), Para-Ordnance (LDA)........Only two have a safety, the XD and the Para, and IIRC, both utilize a 1911 style grip safety. I would suspect that other manufacturers would shy away from this type of MOA if it were really a safety issue, instead of negligence on the part of the end user seemingly resulting in the majority of these incidents.

The Glock should be carried in the manner in which it's intended to be carried eg: a quality holster covering the trigger gaurd. A heavier trigger can be used if the department or individual so chooses. Proper unloading and cleaning procedures must be followed eg: ejecting the mag and clearing the chamber. Safe firearms practices MUST be followed eg: keeping one's finger clear of the trigger. One must become familiar and train with it's unique MOA, just like one has to train to master the DA/SA transition on a TDA pistol, learn to safely manipulate the 1911 or BHP, or become at ease with the HK P7 and it's squeeze cocking mechanism, ect. ect......Hmmmm, all of the above applies to ALL firearms doesn't it?

Speaking on keeping one's finger off of the trigger while covering a BG or reholstering, there are some interesting examples involving pistols with differing MOA's. At Front Sight's training facility, they have recorded two incidents of ND's. One involved a Sig P229 in which the user forgot to decock prior to reholstering "with his finger on the trigger." This resulted in him shooting himself in the leg. Now, not only did this individual not adhere to his pistols MOA by decocking, but he also violated a major safety rule by having his finger on the trigger in the first place. Should he have sued Sigarms?

The other, involved a 1911 which the user did not "on safe" prior to reholstering, in addition to having a holster not compatible with his pistol, which allowed for an inner piece of material to engage the trigger when he attempted to shove the gun in. This resulted in a bullet through his foot. Should he have sued the maker of the 1911 or the holster company, for not applying the safety on his pistol as it's MOA and design dictates for safe operation?

Yet another example, is the female LVMPD officer who was covering a suspect with her finger on the trigger of a DA Beretta 92, when it discharged, luckily missing both the BG and her partner. Should she sue Beretta for having her finger on the trigger during a stressful encounter resulting in the ND of her weapon?

It would be nice to see some folks take responsibility for their own actions, be they right or wrong, much like they used to do. Unfortunately, that does not seem like it will happen, as folks would rather divert blame, save themselves embarassment and teasing, avoid the legal ramifications of their actions, ect......

jnb01

jc2
December 29, 2003, 08:01 PM
jnb01 -

You make a good point, and you cite three good examples of operator error with weapons other than Glocks. It is a good reminder that no weapon is immune from operator error.

Yet, in the current thread (and other threads/sources) we consistently see many, many more examples of operator error with Glocks than with other weapons (and no, it is proportinate to use). It begs the question: is the Glock with its relatively short and light trigger pull more prone to operator error by design than many of the other handguns available? If it is (and heartily believe it is) there is still no excuse for operator error, but by the same token, it ould behoove us as shooters (and particularly those who train others) to acknowledge it might be a somewhat more prone to operator error than other designs and deal accordingly.

jnb01
December 29, 2003, 09:05 PM
jc2 -

Glocks by design, are indeed less forgiving of human error or unsafe practices, and their MOA begs them to be carried in a certain manner if loaded, ect. However, that in no way makes the design itself inherently dangerous, maybe not for everyone or the remedial enthusiast, but certainly not unsafe in properly trained hands. The bottom line seems to be, human error accounts for the vast majority of unfortunate "accidental firings" involving Glock pistols, as evidenced by the incidents cited in the referenced article. I for one, would certainly never carry a loaded Glock unholstered in my waistband. Additionally, I've made it an ingrained habit to check the chamber of any pistol 3 and sometimes 4 times after dropping the mag, prior to cleaning.

As far as keeping one's finger off of the trigger irrespective of pull weight or length of travel to discharge, IIRC, it was Mark Garrity in a thread at ammolabforum who referenced a study that found the average adult male could exert upwards of something like 20 or 30-lbs. of pressure with their index finger while under stress.

jc2, out of curiousity, what is your prefered pistol?

Best, jnb01

LoneWulf
December 29, 2003, 09:27 PM
Bad cops, no donuts. :D

Standing Wolf
December 29, 2003, 09:31 PM
A full automatic Glock will fire 33 bullets in seconds with one trigger pull. And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts.

Yeah, and it's snowing in hell this evening, too.

Roadkill Coyote
December 29, 2003, 09:39 PM
Although I've never heard of "Glock leg", I wholeheartedly approve of any attempt to inject levity into the AD vs. ND jihad. The problem is, people without a Glock can, and regularly do, catch the dreaded "Glock leg". So, If I may offer a humble suggestion, perhaps "Darwin Leg" would suffice. ;)

El Tejon,
*Sigh* Only here.

I'm afraid not. Judging by how long I had to wait for delivery, back when I ordered my LDA, its far from only there...

jc2
December 29, 2003, 09:46 PM
jnb01 -
Glocks by design, are indeed less forgiving of human error or unsafe practices, and their MOA begs them to be carried in a certain manner if loaded, ect.
Equals "more prone to operator error?"
However, that in no way makes the design itself inherently dangerous, maybe not for everyone or the remedial enthusiast, but certainly not unsafe in properly trained hands.
I really was not talking about design itself is inherently dangerous, BUT the design (some of the very features that make it a good weapon and to train beginners to shoot well) lend themselves to operator error--particularly in less than expert (i.e., less paranoid) or fatigued/rushed hands.
The bottom line seems to be, human error accounts for the vast majority of unfortunate "accidental firings" involving Glock pistols, as evidenced by the incidents cited in the referenced article.
I do agree it is human error, but the question remains is the Glock more prone to human error than some designs. The record tends to indicate it is.
As far as keeping one's finger off of the trigger irrespective of pull weight or length of travel to discharge,
I agree with you except we need to consider a longer/heavier trigger pull will give the average human more time to react (to think "UH OH!") and stop the action--couple that with the aural and visual feedback of a hammer moving to the rear and a cylinder rotating (with a revolver) tends to give a whole lot more clues that something bad is about to happen. I was trained long before "keep the finger of the trigger" training (actually in the very, very early days of "use of force" training), and I have heard more than one "war story" where the hammer was already moving back (or "I had already started to pull the trigger") when the situation was resolved without shots being fired--the Glock does not give that extra "cushion."

I'm not really disagreeing with you jnb01--just "thinking out loud." FWIW, the only weapon I carry regularly anymore is a Glock 26 (that finally replaced my Detective Special). It does have a NY1 trigger spring however (before I ever loaded it).

happyguy
December 29, 2003, 10:12 PM
The weak link in the system is the human being. Always has been and always will be.

The patrol car has redundant safety systems (seat belts and airbags) to protect the officer from his mistakes. Why shouldn't weapons designers also recognize the human element? I realize that we are all expected to be perfect, but the truth is that none of use will ever live up to that ideal.

There have been some notable FA incidents with 1911's that didn't even require a single parts swap. Just a botched amature trigger job.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

jnb01
December 29, 2003, 10:25 PM
Yes, Glocks can indeed be "more prone to operator error." ;) FWIW, I do agree with some of your points, particularly regarding the trigger pull and length to discharge, of which, I believe that length of pull is more of an issue, as heavier trigger options exist. However, under stress, I am not convinced that a hammer will initiate any type of warning signal, as it is likely that the shooter will be concentrating on more important things, "tunnel vision" so to speak.

I also carry a Glock, a G19, which is outfitted with a NY1 trigger. I recognize and base my training around the Glock designs "shortcomings" while enjoying it's many "advantages." Those advantages to me are: lightweight, reliability, corrosion resistance, high capacity, consistent trigger pull, shorter trigger reset, availability of parts and accessories, ease of maintenance and ability to work on the whole pistol myself, proven durability in a 9mm platform, ect......Simply put, the "good" currently outweighs the "bad" for me.

Best, jnb01

Teufelhunden
December 30, 2003, 11:12 AM
"I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."

Good thing he doesn't think that civilians are inept and never get any formal training on their own. God knows police officers that are required to go the range ONCE a year have far more skills and certainly must know how to safely handle any weapon they come across...:rolleyes:


The list of Glock victims includes veteran police and experienced gun handlers — people like former U.S. Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training.

An 'experienced gun handler' with 'extensive gun training' is stupid enough to carry a Glock mexican style, so of course, everyone else must be at least as stupid, if not more...:rolleyes:

-Teuf

Harold Mayo
December 30, 2003, 11:15 AM
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
The Detroit News ^ | December 15, 2003 | Melvin Claxton

Should be: Police prone to negligent discharges


Top police gun prone to accidental firing

But Glock gags those who have settled suits

By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News

When police Officer Randall Smith was accidentally shot in the head by a fellow officer with a Glock semiautomatic pistol in 1995, he sued the gun maker, claiming the weapon was defectively designed and unnecessarily dangerous.

...was NEGLIGENTLY shot in the head...


Glock settled the lawsuit. But for the rest of his life, Smith, whose injuries left him permanently brain damaged and cost him his police job in Birmingham, Ala., is barred from talking about the case or revealing any details he learned about Glock before the settlement. His lawyer also is barred from talking, restricted by a confidentiality agreement that is a standard policy for Glock when settling lawsuits.

They've learned the evil secrets of the Glock but are barred from revealing them on pain of death...:rolleyes:

Glock’s and other gun manufacturers’ insistence on confidentiality agreements is common in product liability settlements. The agreements have kept critical information about the safety record of the gun from the public and are a prime example of how the gun industry actively conceals information about injuries and fatalities connected with its products. The industry has done so with the help of Congress and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.

Like other gun makers, Glock is not required to report complaints and injuries to any federal or state agency. And Glock cannot be compelled to inform gun buyers of problems others have had with its weapons.

The News documented more than 50 lawsuits against Glock in the past eight years. In those with confirmed settlements, Glock insisted on confidentiality agreements.

Big deal.

Despite the agreements, Glock pistols, the weapon of choice for more than half the nation’s police departments, have earned a reputation among some gun experts as a firearm with too few safety features and that is too quick to fire. Its reputation is directly linked to its design, which ignores important safety features.

...among some firearms experts...

Well! We know that firearms experts are all experts, don't we? Huh...where do you get to be a firearms expert? The gunrags? These forums?

The no-frills, lightweight polymer-frame semiautomatic pistol forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution. The Glock will fire if the trigger is moved less than a half an inch, compared to twice that distance for most other police guns.

Heaven forbid! A short trigger? It's good to handle firearms with extreme caution. What do you want, a gun that you can casually toss around and don't have to worry about?

And some Glocks will shoot with as little as 3 1/2 pounds of pressure on the trigger — light enough for a 5-year-old to fire the gun. Glock started offering optional trigger pulls of up to 12 pounds in the mid-1990s after the New York City Police Department — plagued by a string of police shootings — demanded a heavier trigger.

Yeah, the guns that have been modified. Some Glocks will most likely fire with a few ounces of pressure...if they've been modified.

The gun has no manual safety to prevent it from firing if the trigger is accidentally pulled. In fact, the gun’s safety features — extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit — automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.

Good feature, IMO. And triggers aren't "accidentally" pulled.

In addition, most Glocks have no indicator that shows the guns are loaded and no magazine safety to prevent them from firing when the ammunition clip is removed. And unlike many other guns, the Glock is always semicocked and ready to shoot. This inner tension in its firing mechanism increases the likelihood of discharge if the trigger is accidentally moved, some gun experts say.

No indicator? No magazine safety? Semicocked? Wouldn't it be nice if someone did their research better? No indicator is needed...press checks are sufficient and SHOULD be used even if you have some sort of "loaded chamber indicator". Magazine safety? Better to NOT have one for a variety of reasons ("ammunition clip"???). If a "semicocked" Glock scares him, he ought to see some of us with hi-powers and 1911's.

"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant. "I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."

Anthropomorphizing a firearm? That's rational.

"Highly trained paramilitary officers"? Hmm...I guess he doesn't know many SWAT guys. "Certainly not for civilians"? I suppose a civilian can't have any firearms skill or knowledge.

Gun’s sensitive trigger endangers police officers

Unsafe gun handling, a common problem among cops, endangers police officers...NOT the weapon's trigger.

With so few Glock victims able to talk freely, details of injuries must often be obtained from police reports, eyewitness statements and court documents that haven’t been sealed. These sources paint a picture of a gun that has severely injured police officers.

"Glock victims"?

In many instances, the injuries are devastating and permanent.

That's what happens when a bullet strikes living tissue. I WANT a gun that will inflict devastating and permanent injuries. Don't you guys?

Take the case of Jimmy Pope. The former Jackson, Miss., police officer was shot in the face when a Glock being cleaned in another room by his roommate and fellow officer, Von Ware, accidentally discharged. The bullet went through Pope’s bedroom wall and the headboard of his bed before hitting him.

Pope lost an eye in the 1993 shooting and suffered extensive facial injuries.

"Accidentally discharged"? Why do they keep saying that it was an accident? Negligent. Repeat that word. Firearms don't fire accidentally.

Detroit police have had their share of Glock injuries, although police officials insist there have been very few instances of unintentional discharges with the gun.

Within two years of switching to the Glocks in 1992, two officers shot themselves in their legs and another was shot in the buttocks. And in July, Detroit Officer Michael Allen, 22, was shot in the leg, the bullet hitting the bone. His Glock accidentally fired as he tried to put it under the seat after his car was pulled over by customs inspectors on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge.

Hah! I guess he shouldn't have been taking his gun across the border! It didn't accidentally fire, either.

Police shooting themselves in their legs with Glocks is so prevalent, said firearms consultant and former Guns and Ammo editor Whit Collins, that gun experts describe the phenomenon as "Glock leg."


Hmm...I don't hear of anyone with "1911 leg" or anything like that. I wonder why?

The list of Glock victims includes veteran police and experienced gun handlers — people like former U.S. Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training.

In March 1996, Roth was tightening his belt in a mall restroom in Buffalo, N.Y., when the Glock tucked in his waistband accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg.

Investigators believed the gun’s trigger caught in his clothing, causing the gun to fire. Roth sued Glock, blaming the gun’s light, short trigger pull and lack of a manual safety for the shooting.

"Veteran police"=guys with a long history of mishandling firearms who have been lucky enough to not shoot themselves or others in all that time

"Experienced gun handlers" don't tuck Glocks into their waistbands with a round in the chamber.


Glock settled the case, but again killed any publicity by demanding Roth and his attorney sign a strict confidentiality agreement barring them from talking about the shooting.

For some police officers like Terry Turner of Beaumont, Texas, such shootings prove career-ending. Turner had his leg amputated last year after he was shot in the thigh when his Glock accidentally discharged as he placed it in his holster.

Probably with his finger on the trigger....

Accidental firings hurt suspects, bystanders

It isn’t just police officers who are getting hurt in accidental Glock shootings. Suspects, innocent bystanders and even spouses sometimes are caught in the line of fire.

That was the case in August when Woonsocket, R.I., police Lt. Walter Warot accidentally shot himself in the buttocks and slightly wounded the person sitting next to him.

Warot, who was sitting on a granite bench outside Providence Superior Court at the time, was adjusting a Glock tucked in his waistband when it discharged. An employee of the attorney general’s office sitting next to him was nicked by flying fragments of granite from the shot’s impact.

"...a Glock tucked in his waistband..."

Other victims of Glock shootings have not been so lucky. Elroy Gonzalez was shot in the head and seriously injured in 1996 while being arrested by a Kentucky police officer for allegedly possessing a small amount of marijuana. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire his gun.

Ronnie Earl Kimbrell was shot in the back by a South Carolina state trooper in 1995 while being arrested for an alleged traffic violation. The trooper said he was trying to handcuff Kimbrell when he accidentally fired his gun.

James Lancaster was killed Aug. 8, 1996, after a sheriff’s deputy unintentionally shot him. At the time he was shot, Lancaster was being forced to the ground after a 20-mile car chase. The officer said he didn’t intend to fire the weapon.

Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.



Company holds gun users responsible for safety

I am mystified by this. Should knife manufacturers put a block of some sort on the cutting edge of their products? Should they make them of materials that cannot be sharpened so that people won't cut themselves as badly when they mishandle the knife?

The concept of something being "fool-proof" is stupid. Fools shouldn't be using something that needs to be proofed against them.


One of the biggest safety criticisms leveled against Glock is the company’s refusal to put a manual safety on its guns. Glock developed a safety for its guns years ago, but never made it available to the public.

Glock built the safety for guns manufactured for the Finnish military, the gun maker’s general counsel and vice president Paul F. Jannuzzo revealed in a deposition. He said the company made 50 such pistols.

Like so many things about Glock, information about the manual safety remains shielded from the public. And despite the benefits many see in the feature, no agency has the power to compel the manufacturer to add it to its guns.

??? They can request it as part of the purchase. And Glocks HAVE a safety...

In 2002, Glock introduced an optional safety feature — a built-in safety lock — for some of its guns.

In announcing the locks, Glock acknowledged that gun manufacturers can design firearms with features that make them safer to keep in homes with children.

"The beauty of the Glock locking system is it is simple and safe," an article in last year’s Glocks Autopistols magazine stated. "It is the perfect system for someone without a strong background in firearms training and is dealing with the conflict of having young children in the home while feeling a great need for a tool that would enable them to maintain control when physically threatened with criminal intrusion."

But the gun maker’s Web site states the company’s philosophy that firearms safety is ultimately the responsibility of gun owners.

"Firearm safety is up to you, the end-user," Gaston Glock states in a message to customers on his company’s Web site. "The safe handling of firearms, like morality, cannot be legislated into existence. Only firearms users can make the safe use and storage of firearms a reality."

WHY is firearm safety NOT the responsibility of the end user...? Someone please tell me.

Weapon easily converted into full automatic mode

One of the Glock’s most frightening attributes is its ability to easily be converted into a full automatic weapon capable of firing at the rate of 1,000 rounds a minute.

You'd have to be pretty good at mag changes to get a Glock to fire 1,000 rounds per minute. Also, as anyone who has fired a Glock 18 knows, a full-auto Glock isn't really very useful.

Glock has issued no warnings and made no changes in its design that would prevent its weapons from being converted into submachine guns.

Experts say the problem can be corrected with minor changes in how Glock pistols are made.

A full automatic Glock will fire 33 bullets in seconds with one trigger pull. And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts. It is a well-documented danger known to law enforcement.

"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise," states an advisory on the Association of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Web site that lists dangerous or defective guns.

"The conversion from standard to fully automatic is fast and simple, requiring no technical expertise. The conversion is accomplished merely by swapping one piece for the other. A ‘real pro’ can make the switch in 15 seconds."

The easy conversion is no surprise, experts say. Gaston Glock, who designed the gun that bears his name, relied heavily on the technology behind the German Heckler and Koch VP 70 submachine gun when creating his weapon, Glock’s 1990 U.S. patent shows.



:banghead:

Jeff White
December 30, 2003, 11:31 AM
"What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire," said Carter Lord, a national firearms and ballistics consultant.

Police shooting themselves in their legs with Glocks is so prevalent, said firearms consultant and former Guns and Ammo editor Whit Collins, that gun experts describe the phenomenon as "Glock leg."

Anyone know who these experts are? Denny, Rob, El-T? I've never heard of either of them. :confused:

Jeff

QuarterBoreGunner
December 30, 2003, 11:38 AM
Jeff- I was thinking the same thing. I googled 'Carter Lord' and came up snake eyes.

I've heard of Whit Collins, though. Probably from his editorial days. Don't have a clue as to his qualifications though.

Harold Mayo
December 30, 2003, 11:39 AM
Carter Lord...

The only result I got with Google involving that name and "firearms" was at www.rockymountainguns.com.

Sleuth
December 30, 2003, 01:10 PM
These two were the first two the writer called who gave the answers he wanted. Thus, they are experts (ex = something that is past, spurt = big drip under pressure).

Read the book BIAS, and you will understand. The article was written from the viewpoint that all guns, but particularly Glocks, are just too dangerous to be allowed in our "kinder, gentiler" society.


BTW, rate of fire has nothing to do with magazine capacity. The German MG42 could fire 1,200 rounds per min., but used 50 round belts. My MP5 can run at 1,000 rpm with certain ammo, but uses 30 round mags. And you were doing so well in your commentary until then...

BeLikeTrey
December 30, 2003, 01:46 PM
I stumbled across a patent while browsing through a patent website. There is indeed a device designed to make a glock full auto. You'll pardon my lack of terminology here ;) . The device took the place of that plastic plate on the back of the slide. it had a flat piece of metal with what looked like a 45^ angle that would intercept the trigger linkage and make it continue to automatically cycle. Not sure, but I think this is the device that was mentioned in the article. It did look extremely simplistic in design, but I believe that EXACT measurements and angles would be a must to prevent "timing" disasters.... blown up glocks from fired rounds before properly seated in the chamber and other related issues.

355sigfan
December 30, 2003, 02:01 PM
Its true if your finger is where its not supposed to be. Then a weapon with a shorter lighter trigger pull will fire sooner due to reasons such as sympathetic response, postural instability and startle response. The problem is however is that if your finger is where its not supposed to be guns with heavier longer triggers will often still fire. Its just takes more. If your finger is not on the trigger it will not fire no matter what. The advantage of guns with shorter lighter pulls is they are easier to fire accurately and fast.
Pat

Master Blaster
December 30, 2003, 03:23 PM
This article sounds like the opening arguement as to why the CPSC (consumer product safety commission) should regulate all of the unsafe guns out there by requireing safety features such as a 200lb trigger pull, or 4 manual safeties that require two key locks (one key to be held by the SGT on duty).

I really liked the part about how when you pull the trigger it disables all the safties. I can see the non gun owners who read this nodding sagely in agreement over their mocha latte, and toffu tart.

An Anti article death of a thousand cuts and all.

I have been carring a glock 26 on a daily basis for 4 years now.

Dont pull the trigger and the gun wont fire.

Unload gun including chamber before cleaning.

Use a good holster.

Practice.

The invention of a foolproof device results in the materialization of a better fool to defeat it.

Harold Mayo
December 30, 2003, 04:33 PM
Sleuth...I'll pay for 1,000 rounds of 9mm ammo if you can guarantee that you can shoot it all through the MP5 in one minute...

Gotta be quick on those mag changes...:neener:

Hkmp5sd
December 30, 2003, 05:56 PM
And the gun can be quickly converted to full automatic mode for as little as $10 with homemade parts. It is a well-documented danger known to law enforcement.
And the number of illegally converted full auto Glock 17s recovered by law enforcement in the US is??? I'd bet ZERO.

"In some regions of California, police are treating any Glock they encounter as a machine gun until proven otherwise,"
How exactly, do police treat machineguns differently than any other weapon when encountered? Ask the nearest gangbanger to show them how to unload it?

jnb01
December 30, 2003, 06:30 PM
Its true if your finger is where its not supposed to be. Then a weapon with a shorter lighter trigger pull will fire sooner due to reasons such as sympathetic response, postural instability and startle response. The problem is however is that if your finger is where its not supposed to be guns with heavier longer triggers will often still fire. Its just takes more. If your finger is not on the trigger it will not fire no matter what. The advantage of guns with shorter lighter pulls is they are easier to fire accurately and fast.
Pat

I agree with Pat.

While it obviously takes more pressure to fire a pistol with a heavier pull, that should not encourage people to engage in unsafe practices such as "staging" or "taking up the slack" of a DA trigger. This could particularly prove to have disaterous consequences if one is under stress, as again, studies have been done showing that the average adult male can exert upwards of 2 X more force with their index finger than is needed to pull say a 12-lb. DA trigger.

Best, jnb01

Dorian
December 30, 2003, 07:38 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the gun’s safety features..... automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other news, gravity causes stuff to fall.

hahahahahahaha

I know what caused these discharges!

Keep your finger off the DAMNED trigger and the gun doesn't go off!

Whenever I bring a new shooter shooting, that's the one rule i stress the MOST. Even if you break ALL the other rules, there won't be an accident at the range if your finger is OFF the damned trigger!

The second time I catch you breaking that rule your range session is over for the day.

Lord Grey Boots
December 30, 2003, 07:54 PM
Idiot
Defn: someone who places a loaded handgun in his or her waistband without a holster.
Defn: Someone who places a loaded handgun in a holster, while placing their finger within the trigger guard.



Lucky idiot.
Defn: Someone who has been performing unsafe gun handling practices (see above) for years without shooting themselves.
Syn: "Experienced gun handler" as used by the press.

Quartus
December 31, 2003, 08:52 AM
Ask the nearest gangbanger to show them how to unload it?

<sigh> A depressingly high percentage of them would have to do just that.

:(

charleym3
December 31, 2003, 10:26 AM
"I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians."

Let us keep in mind that if you are reading this you are likely a "gun person" meaning someone who is interested in firearms and actually takes time to become familiar with your chosen firearms.
Unfortunately a large number, perhaps the majority, of gun owners are not. I'm 44 years old and have been shooting since I was 12. I've spent a lot of time in gun stores and at gun shows and have crossed paths with a huge number of people who want to have a gun in the house to feel safer. They will buy a gun, shoot one cylinder or magazine full, reload the gun and toss it in night stand drawer secure in the knowledge that they are now ready for an intruder. These are the "civilians" from the quote.
A large number of LEOs are totally uninterested in guns and shoot them only when they have to qual. Perhaps the Glock isn't the best choice for them either. There is no substitute for training and practice, still some platforms are more forgiving of stupidity than others.

And, oh yeah, when I carry, I carry a Glock.

DrDremel
December 31, 2003, 10:36 AM
The story talks of a Detroit Cop putting a hangun under his seat so that he could go to Canada. So a Cop shoots himself while illegally smuggling a handgun into a foreign country. I'll be going to my in-laws over the very same border and I know for a fact that they do not allow US LE officers to import their firearms across with them. And to the California police officers that treat every Glock as a machinegun, How should a full-auto Glock be treated any differently than a semi-auto Glock? The procedure should be the same. If it was used in a crime, there is no difference in how it should be treated. This article makes cops sound stupid.

Quartus
December 31, 2003, 01:21 PM
The story talks of a Detroit Cop putting a hangun under his seat so that he could go to Canada.


California police officers that treat every Glock as a machinegun

This article makes cops sound stupid.


Only if the author made this stuff up. Otherwise, it was the cops who made themselves sound stupid.

Sleuth
December 31, 2003, 01:38 PM
Harold, I'm trying not to move this thread off topic, so I'll be brief.

The rate of Fire (ROF) of a fully automatic firearm is described in the number of rounds per min. (RPM) the weapon cycles at. ROF is currently most easily found by firing a fixed number of rounds and using a PACT timer to count the time it took. The timer then calculates the ROF in RPM. It could be 10 rounds, 30, or 1,000. Most FA guns are not intended to be fired at their maximum ROF, due to heat buildup. The ROF is also called the cyclic rate, and holding the trigger back to empty the magazine or belt is "going cyclic". It has NOTHING to do with the magazine/belt capacity. I could, in theory, link an infinite number of rounds together for my belt fed gun. It does not change the ROF, expressed in RPM.

If you do not understand this explanation, please PM me.

We now return you to your normally progressing thread.

Master Blaster
December 31, 2003, 02:20 PM
This is it

elkhunter
December 31, 2003, 08:06 PM
"Thumb behind the hammer finger outside of the trigger guard holster and snap in a loaded weapon."
Hear this every time I qualify at the range.
And how is a Beretta 92 with the safety off any different than a Glock?


:banghead:

Harold Mayo
December 31, 2003, 09:03 PM
Sleuth...you obviously don't understand the humor in my comments about a Glock being converted to a "machine gun". My grasp of the concepts is quite good, I assure you.:rolleyes:

My point, to attempt to state it explicitly, is that persons who write articles such as the one referenced in this thread really have no clue in regard to the concepts to which they refer. I can state with a high degree of certainty that the author of the article, as well as most readers of the article out in the general populace, actually believe that a Glock converted to a "machine gun" will actually spit out 1,000 rounds per minute (that's RPM:rolleyes: ) if it's rate of fire (that's ROF:rolleyes: ) is stated to be 1,000 instead of a brief "chatter" and then it's done. Hence my references to having to reload very quickly.

If you don't understand this, please PM me.:banghead:

jc2
December 31, 2003, 09:06 PM
Kind of hard to get your "Thumb behind the hammer" (to let feel if something is about to happen), and I've never had a Beretta 92 that would fire DA with a half inch of trigger travel and six pounds of pressure of the trigger. The trigger pull on a Glock is whole lot closer to the SA pull of the Beretta than the DA pull.
And how is a Beretta 92 with the safety off any different than a Glock?
So, to answer your question, a whole lot different!

elkhunter
December 31, 2003, 09:51 PM
jc2
Kind of hard to get your "Thumb behind the hammer" (to let feel if something is about to happen),

The reason the range instructor tells us this is to prevent the hammer from being drawn back as the weapon is holstered.

So, to answer your question, a whole lot different!

I think you misunderstood me when I made my statement. I was merely saying that a Beretta 92 with the safety off is essentially like a glock in that you have to pull the trigger in order for the round to fire. Not trying to start a flame war, just attempting to clarify my point.

jc2
December 31, 2003, 10:48 PM
I thought you were asking a question. In the scenario you described, a Glock is essentially like a cocked Beretta 92. While, yes, you have to pull the trigger in order for the round to fire there are some key differences in how far you have to pull the and hard you have to pull the trigger.

Topgun
January 2, 2004, 05:12 PM
and you'll never see another accidental cop shooting.

:D

Coult D
January 6, 2004, 01:48 PM
With the poupularity of Glock in L.E. in addition to the cheap cost factor add this reason: A New York judge ruled that the NYPD testing policy for
recruits was unduly biased for using the following test. " Dry
fire a revolver 18 times double action in X amount seconds"

The court found this biased because many females did not have sufficent hand strength to pass the test. So the NYPD adopts the Glock as 1 of 3 new auto sidearms to stem charges of unfair hiring practices. I am not saying this was the only reason the Glock was adopted.

Prior to going to autos the NYPD had made a DAO policy with its revolvers to prevent N/D A/D this was considered an important step to prevent lawsuits from victims claiming injury due to "officer error" by cocking revolvers. But now we have a sidearm with a short stroke trigger being used in highly stressfull situations.

No matter how many times the "keep the finger off the trigger" mantra is used some officers are going to disregard it on gun jobs. That simple fact makes the Glock dangerous as a general duty weapon.

Is it 100% officer error with the Glock absolutely. This does not prevent lawsuits against the PD for wrongful death/injury. The trend in revolvers just prior to the "LE must have auto craze" was DAO. Foward thinking Police admististrations felt it was negligent to have officers with the temptation to cock revolvers, hence DAO revolvers .

The auto craze hits the BATF rules the Glock to be A DOUBLE ACTION automatic and Miami PD adopt it for the above reason, very soon after hitting the market. Coupled with the below competative bid pricing,easy qualification scores,gender friendly(no long trigger pull) and lightweight compact size make Glock millions of dollars in sales.

BUT it does not change the fact that thousand of officers are carrying a sidearm that will discharge with a mere 1/4 inch of travel.

Using the assumption that officers WILL make the mistake of "placing finger on trigger" revolvers were mechanically altered to prevent SA. Now with the above assumption still in place Glocks are carried without much thought to this. ANYBODY CARE TO GUESS WHY?

Sleuth
January 6, 2004, 02:42 PM
Esay! Bureaucratic Inertia. Having spent all that $$$$, the administrators do not want to admit that they may have made a mistake! After all, if they were wrong about that, they could be wrong about something else!

355sigfan
January 6, 2004, 02:54 PM
No matter how many times the "keep the finger off the trigger" mantra is used some officers are going to disregard it on gun jobs. That simple fact makes the Gock dangerous as a general duty weapon.
END

BS According your logic we should make the guns unable to fire at all. Of course its dangerious its a gun. Guns are supposed to fire when you pull the trigger. Some officers may break safety rules only if the training is lacking. Those same officers would also break safety rules with other guns. There are ND's logged with many long trigger dao style guns. Clearly changing guns is not the answer but rather stressing safe gunhandling. The glocks trigger allows officers to hit targets easier under stress. So it is a dangerious firearm. For the criminals on the other end. Anyone who can't keep their finger off the trigger should not be carrying a weapon period.
Pat

Mike Kerr
January 6, 2004, 03:18 PM
Lets see. I believe the article said that Glock's did a good job of not discharging when dropped.

I believe a holster solves the problem of accidental pull of the trigger when carried in trousers, pocket, purse, satchel or bag.

I believe increased training of police recruits will help keep "their finger off the trigger".

I know mandatory increased range hours will help existing officers to handle their firearms in the same way as the new "better" trained recruits.

I Know I should increase my support of the NRA in its legislative fund raising efforts. Articles such as this which have elements of truth - but not the whole truth. Apparently expert opinions - which are only surface deep on close inspection. etc. These are tougher to combat than a simple gun grabing argument.

Somehow over the last several decades we have become more concerned as a society with "rules to protect the amazingly stupid or inept from themselves rather than placing the blame where it really belongs- with that individual".

At least that is my spin on it.

regards.

Coult D
January 6, 2004, 03:51 PM
355sigfan Said
[QUOTE]According your logic we should make the guns unable to fire at all.

Clearly this this would make the whole point of this topic moot.

In a nutshell I was saying the Glock has less room for officer error than other designs.

355sigfan Said
[QUOTE] Some officers may break safety rules only if the training is lacking.

Patently false, I would say the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks particularly in "cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters {I.E. flailing of arms or body} deadly force would not yet be warranted and N/D occur

.355sigfan
Said
[QUOTE]So it is a dangerious firearm. For the criminals on the other end

I would be less concerned with a suspect's N/D lawsuit but when an N/D occurs its usually the INNOCENT BYSTANDER OR OFFFICERS N/D lawsuit that gets the big money

355sigfan
Said
[QUOTE]Anyone who can't keep their finger off the trigger should not be carrying a weapon period.

Well mistakes and accidents will happen. Its the job of the brass to be mindful of how easy a slip of the finger can occur when choosing a sidearm.
Revolvers, DAO, DA/SA autos all have Neg. discharges it the "safe action" Glock that combines the worst features Light trigger pull-short stroke- no external safety of the above types.

buzz_knox
January 6, 2004, 03:55 PM
Hmm...I don't hear of anyone with "1911 leg" or anything like that. I wonder why?

I've heard of the "Government Groove." Close enough? ;)

Sleuth
January 6, 2004, 04:23 PM
Coult D, the last I heard, in service training for NYPD was one day a year. Has this changed? I hardly consider that enough for a department with so many demands on it. We qualified 4 times a year, qual course plus mandated and required additional training.

As an experienced trainer (over 5,000 officers, none lost to date), I cannot think of one day a year as "highly trained".

Boats
January 6, 2004, 04:57 PM
Thee Bad One wrote:
The Glock is a fine firearm and one of the very few "Combat Pistols" available. What is a "Combat Pistol"? It's one where all you have to do to put it into action is pull the trigger. Presented with a threat? Draw, aim, pull trigger, BANG.

Thanks for that one. My "non-combatant" 1911s and I had a hearty laugh over their reclassification as unworthy of combat.:neener:

Carlos Cabeza
January 6, 2004, 05:01 PM
GLOCK........................The new evil black plastic assault weapon !:rolleyes:
I still have trouble with the trigger safety having any value whatsoever. A finger or damn near anything inside the trigger guard will cause a negligent discharge.

Mike Kerr
January 6, 2004, 05:58 PM
Thanks Sleuth,

quote:

Coult D, the last I heard, in service training for NYPD was one day a year. Has this changed? I hardly consider that enough for a department with so many demands on it. We qualified 4 times a year, qual course plus mandated and required additional training.

As an experienced trainer (over 5,000 officers, none lost to date), I cannot think of one day a year as "highly trained".



Sleuth thank you for your input. BTW within the last year I have had phone conversations with 2 LEO's in Yonkers, and Flushing Meadows. I was told they were on 1 day per year mandatory training. I have found these LEO's good sources for guns which were "carried often and shot little" Don't know the full story nationwide but I know from local fellow IDPA and IPSC shooters who are LEO's that a majority of their department members really don't care to shoot or train at the range that much (PPC shooters excluded). It is a pity.

regards,

355sigfan
January 6, 2004, 06:14 PM
Patently false, I would say the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks
END

That patently false. They don't have good training. Just because they are the nations largest police force does not mean they are the best trained. Thier ND rate and low hit ratio in actual gun fights indicates they are trained very poorly.

SNIP
cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters
END

This is also poor training. You should not be covering someone with your muzzle unless your about ready to shoot them. All commands and covering of suspect should be done with the pistol in a guard position the muzzle pointed at the ground.
Pat

pwrtool45
January 6, 2004, 07:01 PM
At the heart of the matter I'd say there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a Glock. The people that engage in unsafe practices that result in Glock ADs are going to be the same people that result in S&W 3rd gen DAO ADs and Beretta 92D ADs. (That's five Ds for five hundred dollars, would you care to solve the puzzle?) If you're at-risk with a Glock moving to a Beretta or Sig won't fix the problem, the set of problems will simply change (e.g., cocking the hammer to bypas the DA shot, "taking the slack out" of the DA pull, etc.) and have the same results (e.g., holsters inadvertantly being modified in the field to open-bottom, Beretta leg becoming a noun, etc.).

Now remember that people (cops and non-cops) were shooting holes in their legs with S&W models 10s back in the day as well. I would be willing to bet it was less frequent because of all-around better gunhandling skills than the heavier trigger.

happyguy
January 6, 2004, 07:20 PM
Lot's of stuff happens that we don't plan on. Things happen that we haven't trained for yet. You can do everything 100% right and very bad things can still happen to you. It's just the way things are. The highly trained good guy doesn't always win.

In my not so humble opinion, Gaston Glock is guilty of negligence for not putting a manual safety on his pistols and the departments that have accidental/negligent/unintentional discharges which injure someone should be civily liable. So should the individual approving authority that approved the purchase. And the training officer that provided the poor training.

As far as the trigger safety goes, I agree with Jeff Cooper. Putting a safety on the trigger is like writing the combination on the safe door.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

355sigfan
January 6, 2004, 07:30 PM
In my not so humble opinion, Gaston Glock is guilty of negligence for not putting a manual safety on his pistols and the departments
END

The pistol does not need it. And you should always plan on having your finger off the trigger when your not firing. In this day and age were quick to blame others for our own mistakes. People say its not my fault i broke the law its societys, or its this or its that. God dammit take responsibility for your own actions. Its not glocks fault if an idiot keeps his finger on the trigger while covering a suspect and kills them violating 2 safety rules. Sorry but thats a weak excuse. Heck what do we need voice command guns that will not let you fire without a password being given prior to every shot. ND's occure with the same type of people no matter what the weapon.
Pat

cigarman
January 6, 2004, 09:28 PM
Take a look here and you may be surprised at which pistols fail the drop-fire test...


http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/pistolsbulletin2000.pdf

Coult D
January 6, 2004, 09:36 PM
Coult D said
the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks particularly in "cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters {I.E. flailing of arms or body} deadly force would not yet be warranted and N/D occurs

355sigfan reply
This is also poor training. You should not be covering someone with your muzzle unless your about ready to shoot them. All commands and covering of suspect should be done with the pistol in a guard position the muzzle pointed at the ground.

Standard textbook procedure is to holster or muzzle safe sidearm thats a given. I think me and {and poster happyguy} are saying in actual contact situations arise that negate the rulebook.

The "poor training" that is stated as the problem can not be resolved because the NYPD meet or exceed state training regs. This in turn is based on a national standard. The training they recieve would at be least deemed average training of Police Officers nationally.

With the largest PD in the nation they are a microcasm of what happens nationally concerning taking suspects at gunpoint. Situational review is better because all reports are made through one agency.

355sigfan
January 6, 2004, 11:05 PM
think me and {and poster happyguy} are saying in actual contact situations arise that negate the rulebook.
END

I have been in a few situations but there is never a reason to negate the 4 safety rules. Thats like saying its not ok to rape people but sometimes things happen and rules get broken. BS. I am not buying it. If people can't handle the rules they should be trained until they can or let go.
Pat

Coult D
January 7, 2004, 12:00 AM
I think 355sigfan is misinterpting that fact that while the Ofiicer should never violate basic safety rules its the actions of the SUSPECT not the Officer that causes the muzzle sweep, dropping of sidearm, suspect pushing you or another in the direction of your sidearm etc.. that causes the N/D.
While its the action of the suspect that causes the N/D Its where the officers bullet goes that juries award damages even with midigating circumstances. Its a matter of the PD has the liability insurance and the suspect has no such worry.

The whole analogy to rape is pointless. Its the action of the 2ND party that causes the N/D. The 2ND party does not cause you to rape someone.

I think most would agree situational control is somtimes lost by officers. How quickly we can recover and the damages as a result, are the aftermath.

RON in PA
January 7, 2004, 02:19 AM
As I was reading the article it seemed to me that I had read something like this before and the more that I think about it the article is very much like one that appeared a year or two ago about the DC police. Could be wrong, but aside from the many stupidities of the article is this an example of journalistic plagerism?

By the way 50 lawsuits from all the Glocks in service, that's pretty low per centage wise and yes , one is one too many. What's the ND rate of SIGS and other decockers (no safety), revolvers (no safety) and of traditional DA/SA pistols that are often carried with safety off. The author needs to state the ND rate per pistol of all types before he goes off on his crusade, but then he's only a journalist.

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 03:17 AM
Officer that causes the muzzle sweep, dropping of sidearm, suspect pushing you or another in the direction of your sidearm etc.. that causes the N/D.
END

Sorry still not buying what your selling. IN the above situation the glock will still not fire unless the shooter also has his finger on the trigger when it should not be. If Glocks are dropped they will not fire. They are about the most drop safe gun out there.
Pat

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 05:45 AM
355SIGFAN,

Try this sometime. Hold your glock with your finger outside the triggerguard. Next let the biggest meanest officer in your deparment (yourself not included) thump you a good one upside the head. When you wake up I'm sure you'll be able to say that your finger never was on the trigger and that you kept the muzzle under control even while you were losing consiousness.

Not all unintentional discharges are the result of negligence.

Have you ever been a patrol officer?


Regards,
Happyguy:D

buzz_knox
January 7, 2004, 08:23 AM
Try this sometime. Hold your glock with your finger outside the triggerguard. Next let the biggest meanest officer in your deparment (yourself not included) thump you a good one upside the head. When you wake up I'm sure you'll be able to say that your finger never was on the trigger and that you kept the muzzle under control even while you were losing consiousness.

Except those aren't the facts giving rise to the lawsuits. In Knoxville, one of the first lawsuits arose from a cop chasing a suspect. He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her. Wouldn't have happened if he hadn't violated the rules.

The incidents involving shootings during cuffing came from cops holding the Glock with fingers on the trigger. When the cuff hand closed, the other one closed reflexively, causing a negligent discharge.

Coult D
January 7, 2004, 12:02 PM
The last two post are getting to the crux of the problem with the Glock.

Taking all other contributing factors out of the equation the Glock is different in this way from the DAO, DA/SA and even SA with safety applied.
The reflexive grip which happens when one hand closes is less forgivening with the Glock. Your gunhand curls tighter around the grip to protect gun from whatever is happening .(examples cited in above posts) The trigger finger of course should stay out of the trigger guard. But when it does not it has no where to go in the Glocks trigger guard except on the trigger. DAO,DA/SA designs (sometimes allow) the trigger finger can slip behind the trigger to stabilize the gun better during the struggle. Even SA with saftey provide a slim margin that an N/D will not occur.

Ofcourse no officer is taught to protect a sidearm that way because it breaks the taboo of no finger in the trigger guard rule..

Does the above scenerio happen in real life yes. Its all a crapshoot anyway at that point. Its a small and often overlooked distinction that allow some designs to be better than the Glock.

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 12:52 PM
Except those aren't the facts giving rise to the lawsuits. In Knoxville, one of the first lawsuits arose from a cop chasing a suspect. He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her. Wouldn't have happened if he hadn't violated the rules.

It also wouldn't have happened if either of them were carying a weapon with the safety engaged and it might not have happended if the officers were carrying revolvers.

Instead of calling these officers names, i.e. ignorant, stupid, moron, e.t.c., as one poster did, we have a responsibility to train these guys right and arm them appropriately. And in my opinion, for police work, a Glock doesn't cut it.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

Sleuth
January 7, 2004, 12:52 PM
Coult D, what national standerd of training? Who put this out? I've only been in law enforcement training since 1971, and I know of no rules for police training nationwide. There are some suggestions by various groups, but no one I know of advocates 1 day of firearms training a year. Who are you refering to?

State rules are the lowest common denominator. They are minimums to keep state acredidation. They have no relationship to the real needs of the officers, they are set to accomidate the bean counters.

None of my comments are intended as any slight to the training officers of the NYPD. They are delt a bad hand by the administrators, and I am sure they do the best they can with the time and money aloted. But there is only so much training that can be accomplished within 1 day a year. Some officers will 'get it', but many more will not have gained a thing.

1 work day = 8 hours, less admin time (1 hr), less lunch (1 hr), less breaks, less time to clean guns, set up and tear down range/targets, draw ammo, recover brass = about 4 hours of real training time, to cover what? Oh yes, less time for the manditory qualification course (for the bean counters). These poor trainers have a lot to cover in about 2 hours, no matter how skilled they are.

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 12:56 PM
Have you ever been a patrol officer?
END

Yep for a touch more than half my total time as a cop. Now I am a narc and one of the departments firearms instructors. And if he is getting beat till a point of losing consiousness, he should have put his finger on the trigger and shot the perp several times. Its easy to keep your finger off the trigger. Keep it touching the slide. If your in a situation as desparate as your saying then just shoot the sob. If you go out your dead.

SNIP
The whole analogy to rape is pointless. Its the action of the 2ND party that causes the N/D. The 2ND party does not cause you to rape someone.
END

A third party does not force you finger to be where its not supposed to be.
99.99% of all unintentional discharges are negligence. If the gun breaks and fires then its not negligence.

Any more fantastic stories for me about demons that cause cops to put their fingers on the trigger and shoot themselves in the ???. :rolleyes:
Pat

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 01:06 PM
He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her.
END

Actually the term moronic and idiotic covers this action pretty well. Same thing would have happened with a da revolver of a 1911 that an officer forgot to put on safe.

Ever heard of Dr Enoka. He did a study on what causes ND's. There are 3 main causes. 1 Postural instability. Your running trip lose balance your hands reflexivly constrict. This pressure can be up to 100 pounds. If your finger is on the trigger of a da revolver its going to fire.

2nd. Overflow effect. While one hand is grasping the other hand will also grasp with up to 20% of the strength of the grasping hand. Fo your grabbing onto something with you weak hand your weapon hand will also constrict and fire the weapon. Again da revolvers will fire as well.

3rd. Startle responce. Quit simple your startled and reflexively constrict most of the muscles in your body. If your finger is on the trigger the gun is going to fire even a 20 pound da pull.

As for the manual safety aspect. An offcier who can't be trusted to keep his finger off the trigger can't be trusted to engage and disengage a manual safety consistently. There is no technology fix. Its a training fix.
Pat

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 01:07 PM
Yep for a touch more than half my total time as a cop. Now I am a narc and one of the departments firearms instructors. And if he is getting beat till a point of losing consiousness, he should have put his finger on the trigger and shot the perp several times. Its easy to keep your finger off the trigger. Keep it touching the slide. If your in a situation as desparate as your saying then just shoot the sob. If you go out your dead.

You still don't get it, do you? It could be a fall, your partner can be slammed into you for whatever reason, it could be a single blow. I've personally been on both ends of a one punch KO. Do you shoot someone for punching you one time in Alaska? We don't as a rule do so in the lower 48.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 01:15 PM
You still don't get it, do you? It could be a fall, your partner can be slammed into you for whatever reason, it could be a single blow.
END

I get it just fine. Do you get it. THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER. REPEAT THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGETHE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER.R.THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER.

Is that clear. If you get ko'd in a single punch the gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger. If you fall (postural instability) your gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger. A revolver will fire if you fall with your finger on the trigger. I get the fact your trying to excuse an inexcusable behavior.
Pat

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 01:17 PM
I'll make this one short.

Two gentleman entered a residence. The suspect charged the officers and caught them flatfooted, he was unarmed so they decided not to shoot him.:) The lead officer was picked up by the impact and thrown physically against the second officer and the three of them ened up in a pile with the suspect NFL lineman wannabe on top.

The officer on the bottom had about 450lbs on top of him with his pistol as a cushion for all that weight. Guess where his trigger finger ended up. Yep, on the trigger. Did he put it there? Nope, sometimes bad thing happen. Said officer needed six stitches to his index finger and had to have it taped to a tongue depressor for 4 weeks.

Had this officer been carrying a Glock or a revolver both officers wouldhave been injured.

Actually the GUN WILL FIRE WHEN TRIGGER IS DEPRESSED, GUN WILL FIRE WHEN TRIGGER IS DEPRESSED. It doesn't matter what the object is that depresses it.


Regards,
Happyguy:D

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 01:28 PM
If you get ko'd in a single punch the gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger.

If you get KO'd you won't know, nor will you have any control over where your trigger finger is until you regain consciousness. You are Ko'd, not dead.

Edited to add: And don't forget that nether world that lies somewhere between consioulness and unconsiousness, where an individual is capable of movement but is not fully aware of what is going on in his surroundings.

I get the fact your trying to excuse an inexcusable behavior.

That's not my intention at all. I think I'm looking at things objectively and with an eye towards practicality. Yes, you are right. Most ND/UD's are operator error. But your blanket condemnation of every officer who has one is unwarranted.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 05:33 PM
If you get KO'd you won't know, nor will you have any control over where your trigger finger is until you regain consciousness. You are Ko'd, not dead.
END

If you get Ko's while your alone with a bad guy he can easlily kill you. I assume the worst about street vermin. Also why was his gun out if he did not plan on using it. If he had a reason to have his gun out why did he not shoot this person before they Ko'd him. I realize there are times when your gun is out and you have to descalate. However this still does not excuse the placement of the finger. I would bet my pay check on the fact the officer in your story probably had his finger on the trigger prior to falling.

And back to the point I don't care if I have a 500 pound guy on me. If I don't want my finger on the trigger it will not magically get there.

I am not condeming the officers but rather their actions and lack of training. Having your finger on the trigger at the wrong time is wrong and 100% avoidable.
Pat

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 06:37 PM
And back to the point I don't care if I have a 500 pound guy on me. If I don't want my finger on the trigger it will not magically get there.

Magic has nothing to do with it. If you can benchpress a 500 pound guy with the back of your index finger, then I sure won't be messin' with you.:)

I would bet my pay check on the fact the officer in your story probably had his finger on the trigger prior to falling.

The officer in question is not a liar.

Edited to add: And even if he was (he isn't) the safety prevented the weapon from discharging.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

Coult D
January 7, 2004, 06:47 PM
I am glad me and 355sigfan can finally agree 100% on something :) LOL

355sigfan
[QUOTE] Having your finger on the trigger at the wrong time is wrong and 100% avoidable.

Coult D
[QUOTE] Is it 100% officer error with the Glock absolutely. This does not prevent lawsuits against the PD for wrongful death/injury.

Sulaco
January 7, 2004, 07:30 PM
Wow, lots of Glock haters on this forum. What did Glock ever do to you?

I know how the problem can be solved. Since organizations who require employees to carry guns would rather spend money on things other than proper training, use something other than a Glock.

Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.

I am sick of this society blaming inanimate objects for human stupidity.

One other thing, laughing at this type of article and saying., "oh well, I don't like Glocks anyway" is just as good as writing the article yourself. There is no middle ground when it comes to gun control, which is where it all comes back to eventually.

355sigfan
January 7, 2004, 08:19 PM
Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.
END

Actually they were originally designed for military and police shooters who by defination are novice shooters. At least the rank and file are.

Glocks are good for new shooters because they are easy to train on. There is no safety to engage, no decocker to use. The trigger pull is the same for every shot. They are a very good simple gun for all new and old shooters.
Pat

jc2
January 7, 2004, 08:39 PM
Sulaco -
Wow, lots of Glock haters on this forum. What did Glock ever do to you?
What an incredibly inane, asinine statement--it is entirely possible for most mature adults (don't know where this leaves you) to discuss a product's actual (or perceived) shortcomings without becoming emotionally involved (or injecting totally unnecessarily and foolish emotional content). There is certainly room for intelligent disagreement and discussion as to whether the Glock is more prone to operator error than other designs. If you are incapable of intelligent disagreement and discussion, could you at least refrain inflamatory and simple-minded characterizations like "lots of Glock haters."
Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.
Actually, that pretty well described average soldier/airman/sailor (at least when it comes to handguns). Do you even know for what organization the Glock was origninally designed? The real question should be, "Was the Glock designed to be carried with an empty chamber?"
I am sick of this society blaming inanimate objects for human stupidity.
Certain "inanimate objects" (e.g., motorcycles, fast cars, etc.) lend themselves to human stupidy far better than others. Some "inanimate objects" are easier to misuse and hurt yourself (or others) with than others.
There is no middle ground when it comes to gun control, which is where it all comes back to eventually.
To question the whether Glocks are more prone or more readily lend themselves to operator error has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, and to characterize the discussion of handling issues with the Glock as "gun control" is absurd and irrational--sounds like buttressing a fallacious argument.

Pat -
Glocks are good for new shooters because they are easy to train on. There is no safety to engage, no decocker to use. The trigger pull is the same for every shot. They are a very good simple gun for all new and old shooters.
Being "easy to train on" [to shoot] and "good for new shooters" are not necessarily the same. The relatively short, light trigger stroke than makes the Glock so easy to shoot ("to train on") also makes a weapon that lends itself to accidental discharges during administrative handling in less than very well-trained and dedicated personnel. That "easy to shoot" which is the Glock's strength on the firing line is not necessary a good point when it comes to administrative handling--like anything else, there is a trade-off involved.

Sulaco
January 7, 2004, 09:19 PM
jc2, I am sorry if I somehow offended you. Apprently you include yourself in my characterization. If that is the case, so be it. However, I am free to voice my opinion in any way I choose. It is for you to take offense or not. Either way, it is your perogative and I respect that. :)

The Glock pistol was originally designed by Gaston because he had an idea and wanted to develop it. It was not intended for use by any one company or agency. The Austrian Army did indeed decide on the Glock 17 for use in 1982. Then, the Norwegian Army adopted the pistol for use in 1984. The rest is history.

The gun was never intended to be used by undertrained law enforcement officer's. I am sure that is true of most guns. However, the Glock design demands the utmost in proficeincy due to it's simplistic design.

Questioning the design of a gun that is under constant scrutiny by the left wing radical media and uninformed population, is fueling the anti fire. For you to say differently shows how much you care about your rights as a gunowner.

happyguy
January 7, 2004, 10:10 PM
The Glock pistol was originally designed by Gaston because he had an idea and wanted to develop it. It was not intended for use by any one company or agency. The Austrian Army did indeed decide on the Glock 17 for use in 1982. Then, the Norwegian Army adopted the pistol for use in 1984. The rest is history.

My understanding was that Glock specifically designed his pistol to win the government contract for the Austrian Army. In fact, he got into the act late and was barely able to get the prototypes done in time for testing.

This is from my sometimes foggy memory and is based on an article I read in one of those magazines that Glock puts out periodically.

Regards,
Happyguy:D

jc2
January 7, 2004, 10:50 PM
You have it right happyguy!

Sulaco -
I am sorry if I somehow offended you. Apprently you include yourself in my characterization. However, I am free to voice my opinion in any way I choose.
Actually, as I stated earlier in the thread, I carry a G26 more than any other handgun. It is a incredibly ignorant assumption on your part that anyone who questions whether the Glock design is more susceptible to operator error than certain other designs is a "Glock hater." Sure, your are free to voice your "opinion in any way you choose," but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly simplistic.
The gun was never intended to be used by undertrained law enforcement officer's.
Glock sure has deliberately marketed for LE, hasn't he? So, is Glock guilty of deliberately targeting a market for which (according to you) his product was unintended and unsuited? I think you just increased Glock's liability astronomically! :p
Questioning the design of a gun that is under constant scrutiny by the left wing radical media and uninformed population, is fueling the anti fire. For you to say differently shows how much you care about your rights as a gunowner.
Totally asinine!

1911Tuner
January 8, 2004, 10:30 AM
Crownvicman said:

All of these ADs seem to be the result of poor gun handling and plain negligence on the part of the user. Guns are not idiot proof.
-------------------------------

I have to agree. The New Age mindset seems to be to place the blame on
anybody except the one at fault. Many people mistakenly feel that police
officers are expert gun handlers. While it's true that many are, some of the
scariest gun handling I have ever seen has been in the presence of police
and military personnel.

How many ER docs and nurses can relate to this all-too-common scene:

Man rolls in on a gurney, badly shot...maybe dying. In tow is a distraught
friend or relative, tearfully wringing is hands, crying:

"I don't understand it! The gun just went off!"

Wrong. If the gun fired, somebody had to load it, pick it up, and pull the trigger...and all three operations aren't necessarily performed by the same person. Whether the trigger is pulled by a finger or by a hard object within the trigger guard is of no consequence...it got pulled. When the trigger is
pulled, the gun obeys its design parameters, and fires. It is up to US...
each one of us...to insure that the bullet doesn't hit that which we cannot bear to see killed, crippled or destroyed.

Rule 1: All guns are loaded...Always. Never assume that one isn't unless
we have just cleared it and haven't laid it down. If it leaves our hands, even for a second, we must check it again when we get it back.

Rule 2: Don't point it at anything that we aren't willing to see destroyed.

Rule 3: Keep your finger (and other objects) away from the trigger until we
want it to fire. When we pull the trigger, we must be prepared for the gun to fire. That's what it's designed to do...and we must be prepared to accept the moral and legal consequences.

Rule 4: We must be sure of our target and what lies behind it. Shooting
at sounds or movements is not acceptable.

A pet peeve of mine is to hear someone refer to their gun as their "Toy" or their"New Best Friend"...Sorry. It's NOT a toy, and it's NOT your friend. It's a Rattlesnake that is poised to strike 24/7/365.

As for the lawsuit claiming that the guns are "Unnecessarily Dangerous"...
remember the sage words of our Russian friend at the FBI academy:
(Accent deleted for clarity)

It is a GUN! It is NOT safe!

Cheers all!

Tuner

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 10:48 AM
happyguy, after reading your posts you've convinced me. Most cops can't be trusted with firearms (present company mostly excepted of course]. ;) Thanks for the enlightenment.

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 10:56 AM
The reflexive grip which happens when one hand closes is less forgivening with the Glock. Your gunhand curls tighter around the grip to protect gun from whatever is happening .(examples cited in above posts) The trigger finger of course should stay out of the trigger guard. But when it does not it has no where to go in the Glocks trigger guard except on the trigger. DAO,DA/SA designs (sometimes allow) the trigger finger can slip behind the trigger to stabilize the gun better during the struggle. Even SA with saftey provide a slim margin that an N/D will not occur.

The chances of the trigger finger not striking the trigger on any of those weapons would seem to be incredibly low. I've never heard of any instructor or course remarking on it as even a remote possibility or advantage. As for the reflexive grip, there have been many NDs involving revolvers with heavy trigger pulls during these circumstances. The reason is that the reflexive grip of one hand is as strong as the grip being used on the other. You use a bit of pressure to cuff a person, more than sufficient to discharge any weapon.

Simply put, you never cuff someone while holding a weapon. It's stupid from a retention point as well as from the chance of shooting them wrongfully.

Sarge
January 8, 2004, 11:31 AM
"rookie mistake" or not!

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=1591458&nav=1PuZK3JA

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the holster...

BluesBear
January 8, 2004, 03:54 PM
Jan. 7, 2004
Recruit Officer Shoots Himself in Thigh

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- An officer in training was shot in Johnson County, but he was also the person who pulled the trigger.

KCTV5's Liana Joyce reported on "KCTV5 News at 5 p.m." on the rookie mistake that sent that officer to the hospital.

Police weren't identifying the recruit officer who accidentally shot himself in the thigh while training at The Bullet Hole shooting range in Overland Park, she reported.

Six recruits were training with a supervisor when one of them made a dangerous rookie mistake.

"This is a person who has been on the department approximately three weeks. They have had two days of training prior to this that didn't involve live fire," said Officer Jim Weaver, of the Overland Park Police Department.

The officer was holstering his weapon when it went off. It was a .40 caliber glock, just like the one all officers here carry.

Weaver showed Liana just how it happened.

"At some point when the officer was placing the weapon back into his holster, the gun discharged, and he was shot through the upper right thigh," Weaver said.

The investigation into the shooting continued, but officers said when this type of thing happened, it was usually human error, not mechanical malfunction.

The officers injuries were not life threatening.

Nobody else was hurt. All of the officers were wearing bulletproof vests.

STW
January 9, 2004, 04:25 PM
Nothing can ever be fool proof because fools are too ingenious.

If you start with that basic premise, the necessity of training, practise, etc., etc., etc. becomes most apparent.

La Pistoletta
January 9, 2004, 06:38 PM
SigLaw: about the loaded Glock being cleaned, exactly what I was going to say. I can guarantee you that I (who have shot a Swedish AK5 assault rifle once, other than that, nothing stronger than an air rifle) would definately check the magazine and chamber before cleaning a rifle/pistol. It is, to me, inexplicable how any police officer would not do so as well.
And since it is mentioned how good the Glock is in preventing discharging from being dropped, the only way it's going to fire is if it's loaded and the trigger is pulled. And fingers don't belong anyway near it until it's aimed at an intended target, and you're ready to fire. If that means one has to duct-tape the trigger to the triggerguard in case one fails to remember, then be it so...

Cellar Dweller
January 9, 2004, 09:59 PM
AD/ND while cleaning:
sure is hard to clean with a round in the chamber, and you won't get it very clean with the slide in battery, but that is Gaston Glock's fault for designing a gun that needs to be empty before cleaning :banghead:

AD/ND while "waistbanding:"
I am sure that policemen are taught to carry IWB without a holster whenever possible to save money on leather, but is this taught at the academy or is it part of the one-day mandatory training session? And how is that Gaston Glock's fault? :banghead:

AD/ND while cuffing:
Attended a Citizen Police Academy, and learned that my village's officers are taught to cuff when their weapon is holstered while a backup officer keeps the suspect covered at "low-ready"... for your local LEO's YMMV but how is that Gaston Glock's fault? :banghead:

AD/ND while using a DAO without a safety, or a revolver:
Someone should sue Samuel Colt's relatives, as HE didn't design a safety into HIS weapons! :banghead:

Glock manual, page 1, verbatim:
If you don't want the firearm to fire, keep your finger off the trigger :what:

cornbread2
January 10, 2004, 10:44 AM
Some seem to think that the Glock is dangerous because of the need to dryfire the pistol before you can field strip them.

To hear this BS one could ASSUME it is the only pistol made that is like this.

In fact the Springfield XD, Steyr M series, and every single junk SA striker fired auto pistol ever made requires that one dryfire it before it is taken apart.

Why is it that no one complains about them in that manner?

It is because they are not Glocks.

TheeBadOne
January 10, 2004, 11:15 AM
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
That would be which ever gun is most numerous (thus giving more oportunity for discharges). It's the same thing when people use to complain about "Red cars get the most speeding tickets, don't buy a red car". Well, that was true, but red cars were also the most stolen, the most involved in accidents, the most this and that, because red cars were "The Most" period. Red cars outnumbered all other colors combined.

Nuff Said

2 cents

cornbread2
January 10, 2004, 06:13 PM
That is like that really stupid study the state of California did back in the late 70's.

They spent $300,000 to study why there are more motorcycle accidents in California compared to other states.

Most people already knew whay this was.

There are more motorcycles in California than other states by a large percentage.

1911Tuner
January 10, 2004, 06:21 PM
Kinda like people winderin' why men of Middle-Eastern descent between
age 16-40 get patted down in airports more than any other group.

Gotta go along with the percentage thing. If there was just one handgun
model available in the country, there'd be a loud scream to ban it because
of al the accidents with an inherently unsafe design.

I'll repeat it.

It's a GUN. It's NOT safe.

Cheers!
Tuner

If you enjoyed reading about "Top police gun prone to accidental firing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!