Glocks... Operator error or Weapon error?


PDA






Darebear
May 27, 2011, 03:03 PM
With all the stories of Glocks discharging I wondered. Are these negligent OR is it true that Glocks safeties fail sometimes and discharge without the trigger being pulled? I was always taught that a gun wont (or shouldn't) fire unless the trigger is pulled, so is every story of Glock discharges negligent or sometimes true weapon failure?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glocks... Operator error or Weapon error?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Apocalypse-Now
May 27, 2011, 03:15 PM
glock safeties don't fail. they would have been sued out of business along time ago if that were the case.

people don't keep their finger off the trigger when they should. end of story.

Spammy_H
May 27, 2011, 03:51 PM
What he said.

Also, police officers have been known to accidentally get their rainjacket in between the gun and the holster upon reholstering, and a little bit of the material gets in the triggerguard, causing a discharge upon insertion into the holster.

Hence the term "Glock Leg Syndrome"

ATAShooter
May 27, 2011, 03:58 PM
HMMM, I'm an XD fan and I'd even have to say operator error. Glock safety systems are pretty darn good.

rcmodel
May 27, 2011, 04:03 PM
A Glock striker isn't even fully cocked enough to fire until you pull the trigger and finish cocking it & also release the firing pin safety plunger.

A total parts failure would not even cause a Glock to cock & shoot all by itself.

SO, we can say with certainty that all Glock accidents are not accidents at all.
Somebody or something had to have pulled the trigger to finish cocking it and make it fire.

That makes it a Negligent Discharge, not an accident.

rc

JustinJ
May 27, 2011, 06:11 PM
I wasn't aware that Glocks had a reputation for accidental discharge. Now there are a LOT of glocks out there so more instances of user error are likely to occur than with other comparable styles of guns but that is just statistical probability.

rogertc1
May 27, 2011, 06:57 PM
Acording to anti-gun people guns have a mind of their own....that id it...never the operator...(Sarcasm)

Got_Lead?
May 27, 2011, 07:35 PM
The Glock is a very reliable system as can be attested by it's many fans. The safeties on a Glock are comprised of a trigger block and a firing pin block, both of which are designed to prevents discharge if the pistol is dropped. However, when a finger comes into contact with the trigger, and pulls it, this disengages both safeties, firing the pistol. There are no other safeties on the weapon like many other guns have, that prevents the trigger from releasing while the safety is engaged. I guess this is what Glock had in mind when they built it, simplicity, pull the trigger on a loaded gun, bang.

Anyway, the Glock is a safe enough weapon, and it won't go off without intentionally pulling the trigger. But it does require a great deal of respect. Factory trigger pull on the Glock is 5.5 Lbs, about the same as many single action automatics. So it doesn't take much to touch it off. Kind of like sticking a 1911 in your belt, cocked and safety off. I have an XD (similar trigger pull and safeties), I am extremely careful when holstering it.

By contrast, the double action police revolver required typically from 12 to 17 Lbs, pull double action, making them much more intentional to discharge. A stiffer trigger spring called a "New York" trigger can be installed in the Glocks for just a few bucks, increasing the trigger pull to 12 Lbs. the New York Police Department required these to make the pistol much more deliberate to fire. The gun is not itself unsafe or unreliable, it just demands respect.

Weevil
May 27, 2011, 07:54 PM
As others have said it's virtually impossible for a Glock to "accidentally" fire.


It is of course quite possible to accidentally pull the trigger and have one fire.


If the trigger is pulled they are quite reliable and will go bang.


Depending on your skill level and trigger discipline, this can be considered either a good thing or a bad thing.



Of course even an external safety won't keep a gun from firing when you "accidentally" pull the trigger, if you don't have it on. If you "accidentally" pull the trigger with the safety off it'll go bang just like a Glock.

There's no substitute for good trigger discipline and good common sense.

jmr40
May 27, 2011, 07:56 PM
It is operator error, but Glock's andall of the striker fired guns all have a different fire control system than many are used to. If you are used to a traditional double action pull or a manual safety it is easier to mess up with a Glock. Actually there should be just as many with any of the striker fired guns, but there are many more Glocks out there to mess up.

clutch
May 27, 2011, 08:09 PM
This whole bunch of striker fired semi autos just feels wrong to a guy that was raised on semi's that have thumb safeties.

My M&P compact in .40 has a manual safety, I bought a XD(m) because of the grip safety since I felt better with that than a Glock with the safety basically on the trigger and nothing else. Yes, I understand some drop the gun and it won't fire magic is taking place, but one clothing snag and you have an AD or ND depending on how you grade.

My other semi auto's are one that is DA/SA with a hammer block safety and another DA/SA with a de-cocker.

The holster becomes the second safety with these striker fired guns.

Clutch

Skylerbone
May 27, 2011, 08:31 PM
There you have it DB. Those with no ADs to their "credit" say operator error. The pistol cannot fire without a trigger pull. Those who have been a party to an AD say miracle pistol of the future has a mind of its own, it's rare but it happens.

7,000,000 Remington 700s out there and a few ADs later had this forum up in arms over the same question. Either way it poisons the water for some who love a great mystery and the rest of us will likely see the reality behind these tragic events.

Frozen North
May 27, 2011, 08:32 PM
"Keep your booger hook off the bang button"

It is a universal rule, but especially important with a Glock. :D

Red Cent
May 27, 2011, 09:12 PM
Got Lead?, actually the Glock has three safeties. The trigger block, the firing pin block, and the drop safety block. Pulling the trigger actuates the trigger block and as the trigger bar starts to move, it cams the firing pin block up out of the firing pin channel. At the same time the drop safety block is a bar riding in a horizontal slot that gives way at the same time the firing pin is released.
IMHO, you could throw the Glock into the Grand Canyon and unless it snags the trigger on something that sucker will not fire.

Zerodefect
May 27, 2011, 09:44 PM
1.)Follow the gun safety rules.

2.) Glocks work better with certain holsters. I prefer thick kydex for OWB Glock carry. Ravens Concealment would be my pick for OWB.

For IWB I prefer Crossbreed. But I'm extra careful reholstering Glocks IWB.

Realize that if you can take your time reholstering, then do take your time. If you're transistioning back to your rifle, then it makes sense that you're in a hurry. But in that case you'd most likely have a Glock friendly OWB holster like the Ravens anyway.

3.) Take a 3 day pistol course every year, even if you've allready taken it. Just to stay profiecient and safe. Good instructors can slap bad habits out of you before they become real problems. We all pick up a bad habit or two every year.

Follow that and you'll never have trouble with a Glock.

Weevil
May 28, 2011, 01:36 AM
Yeah it's not really rocket science.

A Glock has a firing-pin block that has to be lifted out of the way by the movement of the trigger bar, and the striker spring is not fully cocked and can only be cocked to where it has enough energy to set off a primer, by pulling the trigger.


If you pull the trigger or somehow snag it the gun will fire, otherwise it's just not gonna happen, regardless of what kinda tall tales you hear on the internet.

The Lone Haranguer
May 28, 2011, 09:05 AM
To use an overused cliche, please send all these defective Glocks to me for proper disposal, because they're obviously firing themselves. :rolleyes:

This is what happens when you try to make something idiot-proof: there is always a bigger idiot out there, somewhere.

armoredman
May 28, 2011, 09:36 AM
The Glock design has three safety devices, not positive safeties. All three of them are instantly turned off when pressure is applied to the trigger, whether it be finger, raincoat, or that folded over holster incident that made the rounds a month or two ago. The Glock with anything pressing on the standard original trigger is as safe as a cocked single action revolver with something pressing on the trigger. The New York and New York Plus triggers definately assist in reducing the possability of an ND, but just like any other firearm in history, no passive safety can full remove the possability of an ND. The operator must take care with the sidearm when using it, and should practice reholstering with an unloaded sidearm in a good quality undamaged holster, for safety's sake.
Mechanical devices can only do so much, 99% of firearms safety depends on the loose nut behind the rear sight.

Unistat
May 28, 2011, 10:12 AM
I wasn't aware that Glocks had a reputation for accidental discharge. Now there are a LOT of glocks out there so more instances of user error are likely to occur than with other comparable styles of guns but that is just statistical probability.
This cannot be said enough. So much goofy Glock info gets spread around the internet. It seems to go in cycles and it has been picking up lately.

I guess since it's the 100th anniversary of the 1911, the iconic all metal pistol, it's time to bag on polymer pistols, haha!

Strahley
May 28, 2011, 01:02 PM
A Glock is 100% perfectly safe to own and carry every day with a round chambered. Gun safety is reliant on the individual, not the gun

Skylerbone
May 28, 2011, 01:37 PM
That's a lot of responsibility for the end user. Couldn't we make it easier like the nightly news and blame gun ownership? I think the reason so few Volvos are involved in accidents is because there are so few Volvos on the road...unless you live in Sweden where their accident rate seems strangely higher. One might deduce that Swedes who own Volvos are bad drivers...

Unless we are willing to accept draconian restrictions on ownership there will always be people who own, but should not, firearms that will be operated in an unsafe manner.

Lonestar49
May 28, 2011, 03:03 PM
...

Use with any gun "correctly" -

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/safety.jpg

It works


Ls

jmr40
May 28, 2011, 03:10 PM
7,000,000 Remington 700s out there and a few ADs later had this forum up in arms over the same question.

It's actually 5,000,000 model 700's with over 10,000 incidents reported to Remington of guns firing without the trigger being pulled. Plus the engineer who designed the gun discovered the flaw 60 years ago and tried to get Remington to redesign the trigger. At an extra cost of $.05/ gun Remigton decided it was too expensive.

With a Glock, or any striker fired handgun extra care must be observed, but I'm not aware of a single report of one firing without the trigger being pulled.

holsm50
May 28, 2011, 04:34 PM
...

Use with any gun "correctly" -

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/safety.jpg

It works


No, this is not your safety. It's just your finger!

I do understand the point you're trying to make ------- that safe gun handling practices are the most important part of gun safety. And I agree with that philosophy. However, I think the finger=safety is an overly simplistic phrase most often used by Glock owners as an excuse for the pistol's lack of basic, conventional safety features. I usually hear Glock owners use this phrase right after they hear about someone blowing a hole in his leg with his Glock. It's a fact of life that human beings sometimes make mistakes. The consequences of some of those human errors could easily be avoided with traditional safety mechanisms (ie., manual safeties, grip safeties, etc.) that have been around for over a hundred years.

Lonestar49
May 28, 2011, 05:09 PM
Glocks... Operator error or Weapon error?


...

Well, based on the OP's subject matter, i.e Glocks and knowing, such as the LAPD's drop testing of the Glock, way back when, from an 8 story building, same guns (many) times after time after time, fully cocked, and time and time again the gun sustained front, side, rear, front sight, "damage" but -

The gun did not fire..

Otherwise, damn near bullet proof when it comes to AD vs "ND's" involving them.

They work well as designed and in safety-used methods as designed for both the gun/Glocks and their user's.. Little else wrong to say about them.. OMMV

With exception of one old, soft, leather holster AD, as shown in pics, in here, THR, and the guys leg with a bullet wound i.e. trigger got caught up in "old" folded leather as he stuffed the gun into the old, worn out, used/abused, leather holster.. and went Boom


Ls

aryfrosty
May 28, 2011, 06:30 PM
I will stand firmly with the groups that finds that there are ZERO 'accidental discharges'. ZERO mistakes. There are only 'negligent discharges' where Glocks are concerned. Glocks are not engineered for 'fans' or 'groupies' who think they become an automatically a gun genius of they just buy a Glock, 1911, Sig, or whatever you like. Glocks are engineered to be carried and used by folks who train and learn their system to the point that they are a safe operator with one. Glocks don't come with mulligans that you can throw down if you have a brain cramp and touch off a round. Glocks do come with the ability to create an instant casualty if you play with the trigger. Glocks require a decent holster in order to remain safe. They aren't good to carry in a pocket or the small of the back. They don't need to be in a holster that you have to 'shoehorn' them into. The require foresight and forethough in all areas. When you respect and enjoy your Glock and treat it so you'l have one of the best combat pistols available today.

GLOOB
May 28, 2011, 07:10 PM
Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. You've got to be pretty careless to shoot yourself.

Even if your holster cants towards your leg, you don't have to point it at yourself until it's all the way in the leather. Better yet, I prefer a rake on my holster so it doesn't point down at the side my leg.

Skylerbone
May 28, 2011, 07:28 PM
JMR, that statement is laughable. Those 10,000 include people who admitted to thinking the trigger had to be pulled while closing the bolt, thought the rifle was empty and on and on. The "evidence" video demonstrated people intentionally attempting to "trick" aka defeat the safety and Mr. Walker's "flaw" was in labeling it a safety. He recommended either a redesign to make it a true safety or renaming it.

You can defeat the safety on a 1911 if you squeeze the trigger hard enough. Flaw? No. Abuse? Absolutely. It is the nature of firearms to be dangerous even when handled correctly. That is why people who wear or should wear helmets ought not touch them. A true respect for the consequences and proper training are the biggest keys to limiting negligence.

Red Cent
May 28, 2011, 08:54 PM
Armoredman, the safeties are not "released" until there is noticeable movement of the trigger bar. A lot of people don't realize that the pretravel (actual trigger movement after the trigger lock is pulled back) is actually the trigger bar moving rearward. The resistance that you incur at the end of the travel is the compression of the firing pin spring and the cocking and firing of the weapon. My G34 has a two pound trigger and the pretravel has almost no resistance.

http://www.genitron.com/Basics/Glock23/P2Glock.html

Waywatcher
May 28, 2011, 10:21 PM
rcmodel answered the question. The end, IMO.

Apocalypse-Now
May 28, 2011, 11:20 PM
No, this is not your safety. It's just your finger!

I do understand the point you're trying to make


his point is simply, keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

HippieMagic
May 28, 2011, 11:41 PM
I recall a video of a guy pulling a Glock behind his truck for so long that it nearly falls apart and it still doesn't discharge. The gun was empty but still if that doesn't fire the gun I don't know of anything that would beyond just pulling the trigger.

The Lone Haranguer
May 29, 2011, 06:46 AM
It is only doing what it is designed to do - fire when the trigger is pulled. It was also purposely designed to be simple to operate, with no external "safeties," and to be easy to shoot, with a short trigger stroke. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other makers, producing different designs, who will be happy to separate you from your money.

BlackCoffee
May 29, 2011, 08:56 AM
Not possible by design, and I have a strong distaste for Glocks. The intial safety on the trigger. Then the design of the stricker block prevents any stricker forward movement without rear trigger movement.

Usmc-1
May 29, 2011, 09:30 AM
I thinks safe to say that given almost all safety review boards agaisnt cops for this exact reason has been negligence on the officers part , Im not saying in a bad way , s_ _ t happens , but like many have said Glock would have been sued out of business along time ago , there would be no 2nd,3rd,4th gen Glocks out there! Glocks are tight weapons , if you can find a legitimate "machine " malfunction on a Glock I would love to see it (and so would the Glock campany) !

possum
May 29, 2011, 04:55 PM
much like people's issues with inaccuracy with most handguns. Everyone wants to blame the gun and the sights, but 99.9% of the time it is do to the lack of shooting fundamentals, or the application of those fundamentals. The same is the case here with ND's, operator error.

holsm50
May 29, 2011, 07:14 PM
I agree that most AD/ND discharges of Glocks occur when someone or something pulls the trigger, as opposed to a mechanical failure of a component of the pistol. The same can be said for virtually every decent semi-automatic pistol on the market today.

When we talk about Glock "safeties", we are strictly talking about the gun being "drop safe". All of Glock's so-called three (3) safeties amount to nothing more than the gun being passively "drop safe". I am not suggesting that that is a bad thing, but people should not try to make sound like some extraordinary breakthrough. Most pistols are "drop safe" at 5 feet, which is what the Austrian spec called for when Gaston (or whoever) designed the pistol. Sometimes I hear Glock fans talk about their pistol being safe even if it were dropped out of a helicopter. So what. Even if this were true, where's the benefit. The gun is of no use to you once it drops out of the helicopter. Whether it discharges or not when it hits the ground is also irrelevant. It's just as likely to kill someone when it lands on someone's head.

I would venture to say that very few people drop their pistols. I am not saying that it can't happen, but it doesn't happen often. And when it does, most guns are drop safe, like the Glock. In my opinion, the greater risk of AD/ND is when someone or something inadvertently contacts the trigger. Glock provides absolutely no protection to the user or bystanders from this risk of discharge. In my opinion, that is the "fatal" flaw of the Glock design.

Weevil
May 29, 2011, 09:58 PM
So the "fatal flaw" with Glocks is they go off if someone or something pulls the trigger???



I thought that's what they were supposed to do.

thefamcnaj
May 30, 2011, 12:18 AM
The left wing media as well and ANTI gunners want you to believe than glocks (or any other gun for that matter) jump up, pick the lock and get out of the safe, then go shoot the first family member it sees in the leg. In reality if a Glock discharges, its becasue someones booger hook was in the trigger guard.
I own four glocks and none of them have ever went bang unless I wanted them too.....to bad I cant get the kids to listen that well.

holsm50
May 30, 2011, 12:01 PM
Since when did gun safety become an issue exclusive to the left wing media and ANTI gunners? Was Browning a left wing, anti-gunner? Mauser? Luger? Walther? Smith & Wesson?

My point is that gun manufacturers should strive to improve their designs to make them as safe as possible. To accomplish this, the manufacturer needs to consider human nature and the fact that people occasionally make mistakes or have a brain fade, and design the weapon to reduce the risk of injury when this happens. All of the firearms designers mentioned above knew this and sought to incorporate safety features in their designs to reduce the risk of AD/ND.

I do not consider Glock's elimination of certain traditional, time-tested safety features (ie., manual safeties, grip safeties, etc.) that are aimed at reducing the risk of AD/ND to be a step in the right direction. In my opinion, this does not represent progress in gun safety, but rather a giant step backwards.

Red Cent
May 30, 2011, 01:13 PM
As I understand the thinkology that was transferred to the Glock was its simplicity. Ergo, pull the trigger. No need to worry otherwise. Wait aminute. Hold on. I got it. Hey, my Smith M19 does the same thing.

I have one Glock. G34. I like it. I like my Colt 1911s better. Sorry.

Ain't nothing wrong espousing the toughness, reliability, functionality, and the ugliness of the handgun. It is.

thefamcnaj
May 30, 2011, 05:03 PM
Look I'm all for saftey. But where do you draw the line?
If I decock my px4 storm and forgert to flip it back to fire mode befor holstering, the gun is useless. Should I draw it and need it in a stress full situation.....ooops i'm toast. Or what if I have my xdm and a round isn't chambered and I need it quickly? If I don't depress the grip saftey just right then the slide won't even rack back.
I work at Michelin in the big truck tire division. We swing 5 shifts every month. Some 8 hr. days and nights and some 12 hr days and nights. So we get fatigued and brain fade from time to time. The company has saftey devices all over our machinery.(Trying to account for all human error that may occur.) If you make one wrong move on the machine, it can shut the whole machine and building process down. In a time crunch to make production that is valuable time lost reseting all the saftey devices to get the machine back up and running because you accidentally hit a saftey device. We have 5 cardinal saftey rules we must abide by while on the clock. If the 2000 men employed at the facility abide by the rules they will go home just like they clocked in.
Same thing with fire arms if you abide by the cardinal saftey rules you will be fine period.
If you are more accident prone than the average jo, or careless, or don't pay attention to what your doing you shouldn't: drive cars or operate industrial machinery, and most definately not mess with fire arms.
Gun companies should not start designing un user friendly fire arms because a few people are careless. I'm pretty sure the gun manufacturers have the technology to make a gun that requries the shooter to " press button A, while at the same time pulling lever B, and then twist the 3 knobs on top, then your gun will fire. What good will that be. You have to put a certain amount of responsibility on the human being to do the right thing.

Weevil
May 30, 2011, 10:24 PM
Yeah I'd agree that Glocks aren't as idiot proof as some other pistols.


If you "inadvertently" pull the trigger it's gonna go off, of course if you "inadvertently" pull the trigger on a gun with a grip safety it'll go off too since you're usually holding the pistol when you pull the trigger, if you "inadvertently" pull the trigger on a pistol with a manual safety and the safety isn't on it'll go off too.


Now external safeties would help if you use a really cheesy holster or let your clothes droop into your holster, but then again only if your hand isn't on the grip, [not sure how you'd holster one without holding the grip though], and/or you remember to put the manual safety on.


Yeah extra safeties sometimes help to idiot proof a pistol to an extent, but nothing is ever going to protect you everytime if you are careless when holstering a gun or have a habit of "inadvertently" pulling the trigger.

Lord Palmerston
May 30, 2011, 10:54 PM
It is easier to negligentally/accidentally disengage the manual safety of a 1911 and causing a ND/AD than negligentally/accidentally pull the trigger all the way back in a GLOCK, imho.

wideym
May 31, 2011, 12:44 AM
Most Glock AD/ND that I have heard about since the early 90's have mainly happened when the operator was attempting to disassemble the pistol.

What mainly happened was that nobody ever had to pull the trigger to disassemble a pistol before, and either forgot to check the chamber or while checking the chamber forgot to drop the mag and chambered a round.

Many long time gun owners and expecially Concealled Carry Permit holders become so complacent about safety, that they literally shoot themselves in the foot.

holsm50
May 31, 2011, 01:15 AM
With the exception of my revolvers and lever action rifles, all of my firearms have manual safeties. This includes many pistols, rifles and shotguns. Operating a manual safety is not rocket science. With practice, it becomes second nature with little or no thinking involved, and virtually no lost time. Click on, click off. It's not complicated.

To those people who feel that they would fumble a manual safety under stress, I would state that they should seriously consider whether they should be carrying any type of firearm without being totally familiar with the weapon and proficient. It all comes down to practice. If they are the type of person who fumbles under stress, there is a good chance that they won't be able hit what they are shooting at with the Glock, despite the absence of a manual safety.

I have seen the results of time-testing for drawing and firing a number of pistols with manual safeties. On average, the difference between drawing and firing with the safety-on vs. safety-off is about .25 to .30 seconds. Unless you're in a wild west fast draw competition, this difference in time is meaningless.

When it comes to hunting, I would never hunt with anyone who did not have a manual safety on his rifle or shotgun that was kept engaged at all times until ready to shoot. To do otherwise is to invite disaster. I see no difference when it comes to pistols.

I know this reply is a little off the original topic of Glock mechanical failures vs. operator error, and I apologize. I was actually trying to reply "thefamcnaj's" recent post.

Weevil
May 31, 2011, 01:48 AM
I always use a safety on my shotguns and rifles when hunting too.

That's what makes me leery about having one on an SD handgun.

There's been more than a couple of times where I've gotten excited by the sight of a deer or a flock of ducks took aim pulled the trigger and "CLICK"!

Oops I forgot the safety.


Now it really sucks to miss a shot on a trophy buck but I would really hate for that to happen if I was attacked and had to pull out a handgun.

It's nice to think we'd be calm cool and collected if suddenly attacked without warning but I'm not so sure.

That's why I like a point and shoot type of weapon.

I'm not planning on well aimmed shots using the sights but rather a sudden and violent CQB situatation with shots fired at very close if not point blank ranges.

Of course YMMV and you maybe be planning for other scenarios that are less stressful.

holsm50
May 31, 2011, 06:29 PM
Yes, I certainly understand the argument you make. It is essentially the standard Glock marketing hype/argument that they have been so successful with in selling to the public. After all, when police departments began transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics in the mid-1980's, one of the main selling points (aside from the plastic frame, cheap cost, and buy-back/give-away programs) that separated Glock from the competition was that the pistol lacked a manual safety. Up until Glock came along, it was virtually unheard of for a semi-automatic not to have at least a manual safety. I have often said the genius of Glock is his marketing and his ability to turn what would seem to be a negative into a positive. He certainly started a trend, which other manufacturers quickly followed because they feared they were being left in the dust.

The problem, of course, is that as soon as LEA's started transitioning from revolvers to Glock's, AD/ND's skyrocketed. The D.C. police department alone had over 120 AD/ND's. Cops were accidentally shooting themselves, shooting their partners, shooting bystanders, and shooting suspects. They couldn't keep their fingers off the trigger, particularly when under stress. There have been numerous detailed studies that have established that under stressful conditions, it is very difficult for police officers to keep their fingers outside the trigger guard, despite the best of training. If trained professionals have difficulty keeping their fingers off the trigger in stressful situations, just think how hard it would be for the average Joe.

So, back to my point. There have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, accidental/negligent discharges of Glock pistols. Many go unreported because no one was hurt. For the average guy who owns a pistol for self-defense, he is likely to live his entire life without ever needing to use the gun in a life-threatening situation. Yet, he may be carrying the pistol everyday, where there is always a chance for a mishap and AD/ND of the weapon. In my judgment, the advantages of having a manual safety to reduce the risk of AD/ND far outweigh the unlikely event he will actually be called upon to draw his weapon to defend himself or others, where he might fumble with the safety. And as I said before, if he practices with the safety, it becomes an instinctual response.

Obviously, the effects of stress can be argued as pros or cons for a manual safety. It seems to me that the advantages of a manual safety (and/or grip safety) in reducing the risk of AD/ND outweigh the disadvantages, which, in my opinion, can be overcome with practice. Just ask any guy with a case of Glock leg.

amd6547
May 31, 2011, 06:38 PM
I am safety conscious to the extreme...after all, when I was young and foolish, I had a negligent discharge involving a pistol which HAD a safety.
Having learned my lesson the hard way (not too hard, as no one was hurt...I just had to endure the loudest shot I hope to ever hear, and reaction of my Father), I am anal regarding the loaded state of my pistols chamber.
I recently went back into Glocks in a big way, finding them accurate and reliable.
In the few months I have carried and shot the two Glocks I own, I have trained myself to the Glock manual of arms.
My finger is off the trigger unless I am preparing to fire...I keep my trigger finger straight along the frame, the tip resting in the notch where the takedown latch is. I practice moving my finger onto the trigger from this ready position.
Yes, the Glock requires pulling the trigger prior to disassembly...pistol is fully loaded, and continue to check it even when I KNOW it isn't.
I use a stiff kydex holster which covers the trigger guard, and use care when holstering...loaded or not.
I intend that my Glock will never fire unless I want it to, and trust that it will when I do.

Paul7
May 31, 2011, 07:14 PM
I personally consider the Glock to be inherently less safe than a gun with a stiff double action pull or manual safety. That little trigger thingy is nothing but a gimmick. Col. Jeff Cooper said he couldn't even imagine a circumstance where it would be useful.

Interesting how even he once had an AD, but the keyboard commandos here think it could never happen to them.

From my experienc, Glocks aren't especially reliable either.

amd6547
May 31, 2011, 07:32 PM
ADs..."accidental discharges" rarely occur.
Negligent Discharges do..often. ..And with any type of firearm in the hands of the complacent and the unaware.
There are people who just should not be trusted with any firearm. Unfortunately, that includes some law officers.
If you feel safer due to a mechanical on/off switch on your firearm, then don't use a Glock.
For me, firearms safety starts and ends in my brain.
BTW, my first Glock was a G23, which I owned over 10 years ago...it did suffer the occasional stovepipe, and I was never very accurate with it...sold it and turned my back on Glocks.
My G30 compact 45acp has been 100 percent reliable and very accurate...likewise the G17 I picked up for lower cost Glock trigger time.

Red Cent
May 31, 2011, 07:33 PM
Paul, you got a big spoon in your hand and are you wrapped in tinfoil?:evil:

Paul7
May 31, 2011, 08:19 PM
amd, you are correct, I should have said ND, not AD. They are less likely to happen with a double action and/or manual safety gun. You said, firearm safety begins in your brain. That is why a safety is important, we all make mistakes.

holsm50
May 31, 2011, 10:21 PM
Gaston calls this one "Perfection Plus"
143211

If you enjoyed reading about "Glocks... Operator error or Weapon error?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!