Glock unintended discharges
- Thread starter charlie echo
- Start date
- Status
SharpsDressedMan
member
HOW TO PREVENT GLOCK UNINTENTIONAL DISCHARGES: 1) Keep your finger (or other objects, like a goofy holster) out of the trigger guard until ready to INTENTIONALLY fire the gun. 2) Review #1.
ForumSurfer
Member
There, fixed that for you.SharpsDressedMan said:
RidgwayCO
Member
Yes you can use any adjective you want to describe this event, but it doesn't change the fact that this was a negligent discharge. I also believe in the power of words and try to use the most appropriate word (or words) to describe an event. Yes it was accidental, yes it was unintentional, yes it was probably unexpected, and heck it was probably also by chance!
But if that bullet had hit somebody and (G-d forbid) killed them, then the person who caused that "negligent discharge" would probably be facing a charge of "negligent homicide". Words do have meaning...
silverking
Member
I prefer leather or horsehide to the kydex material but letting a holster get as bad as that one was is just wrong.
bbuddtec
Member
hardluk- # 19 ... EXACTLY!!! you win the prize! The holster was not used as intended and designed. Operator Failure.
congrats!
congrats!
glove
Member
They just don't happen. User error period.
Dave
Dave
smince
Member.
IMO, just another example of someone who will spend good money on a pistol but either:
1.Skimps on a quality holster/belt combo
or
2. Too cheap to replace said combo when it becomes unserviceable.
1.Skimps on a quality holster/belt combo
or
2. Too cheap to replace said combo when it becomes unserviceable.
RETG
Member
Since I do not have that type of holster, let me ask a question.
Was he carrying that holster on the inside of the belt (between belt and body)? Is it designed to be carried that way, or is the holster designed to be on the outside of the belt?
Not that it matters, and I can even see a DA/SA fire if he shoved it into the holster fast and hard.
Was he carrying that holster on the inside of the belt (between belt and body)? Is it designed to be carried that way, or is the holster designed to be on the outside of the belt?
Not that it matters, and I can even see a DA/SA fire if he shoved it into the holster fast and hard.
rscalzo
Member
As the holster sppeasrs to be a Galco which is one of the better brands on the market I have to wonder what level of maintenance the owner gave the rest of his gear? I have holsters bought in the 70's that look a hell of a lot better than this one.
Years back a similar incident occured but not from a holster in disrepair but on not made for the make and model of the handgun. in some ways many got used to the leeway given the early DA semi-auto handguns and the revolvers. Trigger pulls for DA in the ten pound range and up. But today's Glocks? Mines in the probably four pound range.
Getting back to the original issue. someone should smack the owner upside the head for using such a piece of crap in this situation. Thats why I'm a huge fan of quality leather gear. In fact looking at the photos, I'm wondering it that is the proper holster for that glock model and the cinching on the user's belt might have crimped it.
Years back a similar incident occured but not from a holster in disrepair but on not made for the make and model of the handgun. in some ways many got used to the leeway given the early DA semi-auto handguns and the revolvers. Trigger pulls for DA in the ten pound range and up. But today's Glocks? Mines in the probably four pound range.
Getting back to the original issue. someone should smack the owner upside the head for using such a piece of crap in this situation. Thats why I'm a huge fan of quality leather gear. In fact looking at the photos, I'm wondering it that is the proper holster for that glock model and the cinching on the user's belt might have crimped it.
NJ State Police had problems with their then newly issued P7's.
hardluk1
member
RETG & rscalzo look again at the holster . It is a feft hand holster for out side of the belt carry. Dummy used an unreinferced left hand holster on his right side between his body and belt. Just a bad move from the start. By now he should know better.
The Bushmaster
Member
I don't think so hardluk1...Looks more like he was wearing a left hand (cheap) slide holster on the right side (OWB) in some form of a cross draw. Butt forward.
I do agree with you on the fact that it wasn't a real smart move on his part.
I do agree with you on the fact that it wasn't a real smart move on his part.
earlthegoat2
Member
See, if the gun had a manual safety that was properly emplyed this never would have happened.
If he was carrying condition 3 this never would have happened either and no on would be the wiser.
Yeah, just stoking the fire a little.
If he was carrying condition 3 this never would have happened either and no on would be the wiser.
Yeah, just stoking the fire a little.
ColdDeadHand
Member
"One things for sure- this would never happen with an M1911."
Man, if this is how you keep your holsters, I'm sure you could find one that could disengage the safety and press the trigger on you M1911.
Looks painful, but it could have been a harder-learned lesson.
Man, if this is how you keep your holsters, I'm sure you could find one that could disengage the safety and press the trigger on you M1911.
Looks painful, but it could have been a harder-learned lesson.
Harley Quinn
Member
As I have mentioned in a few of these Glock acc/neg discharge situations...Chamber empty if you are not carring in a correct holster
Glocks are extra care needed imho...The holster takes care of it...
I have the pistols around the house, in a veh, on my person, always empty chamber now... I don't use a super good holster anymore...Mexican carry in a soft deer hide, my preference, now...
Glocks are extra care needed imho...The holster takes care of it...
I have the pistols around the house, in a veh, on my person, always empty chamber now... I don't use a super good holster anymore...Mexican carry in a soft deer hide, my preference, now...
I'm skeptical that the trigger was pulled by the holster. How did he manage to get the gun holstered prior to this event? He would have needed to push that wrinkle out of the way somehow. Index finger through the triggerguard maybe & pushed the gun down before getting the finger out?
mgmorden
Member
Not deflecting blame from the user, but there's a good chance that that fold/wrinkle wasn't as significant as it appears in the photos until after this incident. My guess is that the protrusion was less pronounced for a while and when the trigger caught it this time and discharged it really bent/folded it down significantly.
Did this guy make a mistake? Probably. Should he have replaced his favorite holster a little sooner? Perhaps. Could he have been more careful? Probably. But that is nature of most accidents. It's called human error.
Guns are no different than any other tool, machine or product. They are designed and manufactured by human beings to be used by human beings who are prone to human error. Gun manufacturers know this very well. That is why manual safeties and grip safeties have been around for a hundred years. Would either one of these features have prevented this particular unintentional discharge? Absolutely.
So, for those of you who insist on blaming the guy for not replacing his holster, that's fine. But the fact remains that Glock had the ability to prevent this type of accident, but chose not to. Is that "perfection"?
Guns are no different than any other tool, machine or product. They are designed and manufactured by human beings to be used by human beings who are prone to human error. Gun manufacturers know this very well. That is why manual safeties and grip safeties have been around for a hundred years. Would either one of these features have prevented this particular unintentional discharge? Absolutely.
So, for those of you who insist on blaming the guy for not replacing his holster, that's fine. But the fact remains that Glock had the ability to prevent this type of accident, but chose not to. Is that "perfection"?
I'm having a hard time swallowing all of the comments regarding the design of the Glock, with references to the fact that an added safety may have prevented this "accident." What? Are all of these people now proponents of the "protect the people from themselves" line of thought.
The way things look to me, this may very well have happened even if the firearm had a grip safety. The guy was carrying in improperly, in an overly worn holster and had it in his waist band in a manner that would have him sitting on it. How many safeties are required to render a handgun safe? Or, how safe does a handgun have to be to protect a guy from himself?
As far as I see it, there was no malfunction. As far as I see, it was just a matter of time before this sort of incident occurred. A set of circumstances were created that could have lead to no other outcome, and was going to happen sooner or later. All a grip and/or thumb safety would have done was to add a false sense of security.
I've always been taught and have read many times on this forum that you should NEVER rely on a mechanical safety anyway.
I'll say that if the OP had been carrying his Glock in a proper molded holster, this would never have happend either.
As for carrying in condition 3, to me that's just carrying around an empty firearm.
The way things look to me, this may very well have happened even if the firearm had a grip safety. The guy was carrying in improperly, in an overly worn holster and had it in his waist band in a manner that would have him sitting on it. How many safeties are required to render a handgun safe? Or, how safe does a handgun have to be to protect a guy from himself?
As far as I see it, there was no malfunction. As far as I see, it was just a matter of time before this sort of incident occurred. A set of circumstances were created that could have lead to no other outcome, and was going to happen sooner or later. All a grip and/or thumb safety would have done was to add a false sense of security.
I've always been taught and have read many times on this forum that you should NEVER rely on a mechanical safety anyway.
I'll say that if the OP had been carrying his Glock in a proper molded holster, this would never have happend either.
As for carrying in condition 3, to me that's just carrying around an empty firearm.
Harley Quinn
Member
TonyAngel,
The condition of chamber empty/3...It is considered loaded for Penal code violation...
Best thing you can do for others safety and self (if not carring in a correct holster and control of weapon) IMHO...Once it is not on me, it is condition 3...
Like drawing and fanning in days of old (SA revolver) only you do it one time
Regards
The condition of chamber empty/3...It is considered loaded for Penal code violation...
Best thing you can do for others safety and self (if not carring in a correct holster and control of weapon) IMHO...Once it is not on me, it is condition 3...
Like drawing and fanning in days of old (SA revolver) only you do it one time
Regards
Fowl Habit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1
Hmmm, I was thinking that it appears Darwin's theory of natural selection has failed yet again! 
I'm going to join the bandwagon of people who completely disagree with the ultimate premise of the blog posted in #1. The blog was just a good learning experience until the whole "my 1911 wouldn't do that" gave it that angle of "it was somewhat the gun's fault". I'll echo with everyone else, it had NOTHING TO DO with the gun, why did the blog have to go there?
The link in the blog which recounted the entire event as narrated by the gun/holster actual owner was clearly humble and the owner took responsibility for his failure to secure his weapon in his holster. He made no mention of another weapon that "wouldn't do that" to make him look any less responsible.
It seems that "One things for sure- this would never happen with an M1911" is coming from someone who's put too much faith in his hardware, and not in his discipline with a firearm. I could be wrong, but that's what that sounds like and that's just as dangerous as an old, worn out holster.
The link in the blog which recounted the entire event as narrated by the gun/holster actual owner was clearly humble and the owner took responsibility for his failure to secure his weapon in his holster. He made no mention of another weapon that "wouldn't do that" to make him look any less responsible.
It seems that "One things for sure- this would never happen with an M1911" is coming from someone who's put too much faith in his hardware, and not in his discipline with a firearm. I could be wrong, but that's what that sounds like and that's just as dangerous as an old, worn out holster.
- Status
