lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,321
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=33826
First I've heard of a Glock .45 doing this.
First I've heard of a Glock .45 doing this.
More of that stuff Glock owners don't want to see
- Thread starter lee n. field
- Start date
- Status
SouthpawShootr
Member
Fine by me. When this happens, I get a chance at getting some lightly used or refurb pieces for a good price. And I don't have a 21 yet. So turn them in. I'll just enjoy myself more.
Grunt
Member
Well, first off I'd say buy HK in the first place. 
But seriously though, how many Glocks are out there in the shooting world? Now how many of them have blown up? Now ask yourself how many commercial flights go up every day. Now how many of those flights come down in flames? Do these things happen? Yes. However, look at the ratio of blown up Glocks to the number of them out there and look at the number of planes that come crashing down out of the sky. When you look at things from the perspective of the big picture, what really are your chances of being on that plane that goes down or having a Glock that blows up?
But seriously though, how many Glocks are out there in the shooting world? Now how many of them have blown up? Now ask yourself how many commercial flights go up every day. Now how many of those flights come down in flames? Do these things happen? Yes. However, look at the ratio of blown up Glocks to the number of them out there and look at the number of planes that come crashing down out of the sky. When you look at things from the perspective of the big picture, what really are your chances of being on that plane that goes down or having a Glock that blows up?Grunt, to continue your analogy; let's say that Boeing was aware of a defect in their 747s that could result in a crash, however infrequently. Let's say a 747 crashed as a result of that defect after Boeing failed to correct the defect.
Would it be reasonable to suppose that Boeing bore some responsibility for the crash, however remote the odds were? Heck, yeah. Criminal negligence would also come into play.
Glock has been made aware of this issue for many years now. Their official response is to ignore it, when a simple change to the barrel design on their pistols could correct it on all future pistols.
Here we are trying to get a gun manufacturer lawsuit immunity bill through Congress while one of the biggest handgun manufacturers in the world is ignoring a design flaw in the weapons they sell to a multitude of people who use them to defend themselves and society. The fact that Glock sells so many guns makes the problem worse, not better.
We take automobile recalls for granted. We view them as the responsibility of the manufacturer to rectify a mistake in the design that might result in death or injury to the end users of their products. Why does the same thinking not apply to pistols? Only because Congress won't let it. Unless Glock wants the Consumer Product Safety Commission to decide to regulate firearms, which has already been proposed, just maybe they should do the responsible thing and regulate themselves.
Ask yourself which is more important; protecting Glock's reputation in law enforcement circles or making their product as safe as it can be for the folks who depend on it.
Would it be reasonable to suppose that Boeing bore some responsibility for the crash, however remote the odds were? Heck, yeah. Criminal negligence would also come into play.
Glock has been made aware of this issue for many years now. Their official response is to ignore it, when a simple change to the barrel design on their pistols could correct it on all future pistols.
Here we are trying to get a gun manufacturer lawsuit immunity bill through Congress while one of the biggest handgun manufacturers in the world is ignoring a design flaw in the weapons they sell to a multitude of people who use them to defend themselves and society. The fact that Glock sells so many guns makes the problem worse, not better.
We take automobile recalls for granted. We view them as the responsibility of the manufacturer to rectify a mistake in the design that might result in death or injury to the end users of their products. Why does the same thinking not apply to pistols? Only because Congress won't let it. Unless Glock wants the Consumer Product Safety Commission to decide to regulate firearms, which has already been proposed, just maybe they should do the responsible thing and regulate themselves.
Ask yourself which is more important; protecting Glock's reputation in law enforcement circles or making their product as safe as it can be for the folks who depend on it.
It was stated as fact: "Glock has been made aware of this issue for many years now. Their official response is to ignore it, when a simple change to the barrel design on their pistols could correct it on all future pistols. "
There is no factual analysis anywhere by anyone that confirms that statement. Anecdotal comments suggest that the majority, vast majority, is due to owner/reloader negligence. The Portland PD is way over-reacting.
Now, that is not so say that there could not be a problem with some Glocks that are a manufacturing defect...I am sure that is the case as no company is perfect.
If the Portland PD wants to sell the GLocks, I'll take them all.
There is no factual analysis anywhere by anyone that confirms that statement. Anecdotal comments suggest that the majority, vast majority, is due to owner/reloader negligence. The Portland PD is way over-reacting.
Now, that is not so say that there could not be a problem with some Glocks that are a manufacturing defect...I am sure that is the case as no company is perfect.
If the Portland PD wants to sell the GLocks, I'll take them all.
The Tourist
member
There could be one factor, that is, what type of cheap ammunition does the department practice with?
I'm a reloader, but I reload all of my handguns, and my Marlin 45-70 with cast linotype bullets and good lube. Then the guns are cleaned after firing.
There was some early concern with the 23 Model than soft lead, lube and grit built up and some guns had an over-pressure problem. Just using good lino would fix that.
My guess is (and it's only a GUESS) that the department uses dirt cheap, sooty, reloads and some handguns are not cleaned thoroughly. The Glock has a rep that it will fire dirty, wet, sweaty, full of snow and never needs cleaning. It might be a case of simple abuse.
I'm a reloader, but I reload all of my handguns, and my Marlin 45-70 with cast linotype bullets and good lube. Then the guns are cleaned after firing.
There was some early concern with the 23 Model than soft lead, lube and grit built up and some guns had an over-pressure problem. Just using good lino would fix that.
My guess is (and it's only a GUESS) that the department uses dirt cheap, sooty, reloads and some handguns are not cleaned thoroughly. The Glock has a rep that it will fire dirty, wet, sweaty, full of snow and never needs cleaning. It might be a case of simple abuse.
Here we are trying to get a gun manufacturer lawsuit immunity bill through Congress while one of the biggest handgun manufacturers in the world is ignoring a design flaw in the weapons they sell to a multitude of people who use them to defend themselves and society. The fact that Glock sells so many guns makes the problem worse, not better.
As far as I know, the immunity bill would not be in control in this case. The immunity bill is to stop lawsuits resulting from the unlawful use of firearms in commision of crime.
For example, if I killed someone with my Colt .45, the bill would stop the victims family from sueing Colt. This is a defect product, the bill would not apply and Glock would be liable to lawsuite.
Jack
As far as I know, the immunity bill would not be in control in this case. The immunity bill is to stop lawsuits resulting from the unlawful use of firearms in commision of crime.
For example, if I killed someone with my Colt .45, the bill would stop the victims family from sueing Colt. This is a defect product, the bill would not apply and Glock would be liable to lawsuite.
Jack
It was stated as fact: "Glock has been made aware of this issue for many years now. Their official response is to ignore it, when a simple change to the barrel design on their pistols could correct it on all future pistols. "
Once again, prove it. There has not been and there is no study anywhere by any legitimate scientific/engineering independent source that says that there is a design flaw in Glocks.
People can like or dislike Glocks for any reason they want. But it is not fair to state as fact that "design flaws" exist....just isn't a fact.
BTW, I am an attorney. I know many fellow attorneys that are excellent personal injury attorneys. If you have access to a legitimate scientific analysis of Glock KB's, point me to it. My friends are eager to file class action status.
Once again, prove it. There has not been and there is no study anywhere by any legitimate scientific/engineering independent source that says that there is a design flaw in Glocks.
People can like or dislike Glocks for any reason they want. But it is not fair to state as fact that "design flaws" exist....just isn't a fact.
BTW, I am an attorney. I know many fellow attorneys that are excellent personal injury attorneys. If you have access to a legitimate scientific analysis of Glock KB's, point me to it. My friends are eager to file class action status.
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
Yes, perhaps they should have bought the HK in the first place
Seriously though, a double charge will wreak havoc on any firearm.
This issue has been on The Gun Zone for a long time. It seems silly to think that Glock is not aware of it. That, combines with Dean Speir's PNG status with Glock tend to lend support to my assertion. It would be stupid of Glock to admit they were aware of the problem if they have no intention of fixing it.
Federal 230 grain Hi-Shok. New, fully-jacketed ammo, and hardly cheap if my cost for it is anything to go by.
Indeed, the current legislation would not protect Glock from a lawsuit on this issue. My point was that Glock's position does not help the bill's chances of passage. Foes of the bill are trying to paint the industry as interested only in their bottom line and indifferent to the effects their products have on society. And darned if that doesn't appear to be Glock's position on this!
They had two of their guns blow up in one month! I think that would make anyone justifiably twitchy. Once could be chance, but twice? In one month? The Chief is looking out for his people.
The fact is that they had two of their guns blow up in one month! Were the Glocks designed to do that? Sounds like a defect to me. If you had two trucks that exploded after you filled them up with regular unleaded would you blame the gasoline or the truck manufacturer?
It was stated and asked: "The fact is that they had two of their guns blow up in one month! Were the Glocks designed to do that? Sounds like a defect to me. If you had two trucks that exploded after you filled them up with regular unleaded would you blame the gasoline or the truck manufacturer?"
Well, interestingly enough I did have a similar experience with Chevrolet Suburbans. Two new Suburbans had complete transmission failures in the span of their first 2000 miles. This was not a DESIGN defect, it was a manufacturing issue that can happen to any firm.
Saying something is a design defect is a very serious charge, and to date not one independent study has shown that to be the case. All of the talk, anecdotal stuff, etc etc does not prove by any scientific means that there is an inherent flaw in the design.
I won't argue that it might not suggest a related and coordinated problem and warrant investigation by competent authorities. And, I guarantee you that Glock is aware and working on finding out the real issue.
Finally, in an earlier post I noted that I thought that the Portland PD way over-reacted. That was not a fair comment as I have no idea what they did to investigate the issue. The articles about the incidents suggest some internal investigations, but the qualifications to make a "design defect" claim are not listed or mentioned.
Well, interestingly enough I did have a similar experience with Chevrolet Suburbans. Two new Suburbans had complete transmission failures in the span of their first 2000 miles. This was not a DESIGN defect, it was a manufacturing issue that can happen to any firm.
Saying something is a design defect is a very serious charge, and to date not one independent study has shown that to be the case. All of the talk, anecdotal stuff, etc etc does not prove by any scientific means that there is an inherent flaw in the design.
I won't argue that it might not suggest a related and coordinated problem and warrant investigation by competent authorities. And, I guarantee you that Glock is aware and working on finding out the real issue.
Finally, in an earlier post I noted that I thought that the Portland PD way over-reacted. That was not a fair comment as I have no idea what they did to investigate the issue. The articles about the incidents suggest some internal investigations, but the qualifications to make a "design defect" claim are not listed or mentioned.
Grunt
Member
Yeah, but isn't it nice to know that HK takes the time and effort to make sure that if you do put a faulty load through their guns, that they are designed to come apart in a way as to not hurt the shooter? Let's all say it together now; "Glocks are good but HKs are great!"
Let's all say it together now; "Glocks are good but HKs are great!"JoeWang
Member
Cool. I hope I can get their trade ins from CDNN at $369. I'm buying.
If it's a design defect then why are they just switching caliber? The 9mm Glocks are a virtually identical design.
BTW, if you go to the gunzone and actually READ the section on the Glock 21, you will note that there are three incidents listed.
The first involves Master Ammo remanufactured ammunition.
The second involves "out of spec" reloads.
The third involves American Ammunition.
Need I say more?
edited--Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, all the incidents I mentioned above (the most recent of which was 4 years old) have now been replaced by the Portland PD incident and one other incident which involved reloads.
BTW, if you go to the gunzone and actually READ the section on the Glock 21, you will note that there are three incidents listed.
The first involves Master Ammo remanufactured ammunition.
The second involves "out of spec" reloads.
The third involves American Ammunition.
Need I say more?
edited--Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, all the incidents I mentioned above (the most recent of which was 4 years old) have now been replaced by the Portland PD incident and one other incident which involved reloads.
Last edited:
Boy, you can tell the guys with the Glock fetish, cant ya?
IMO< a police issue weapon that blows up once is gone. Period.
And I do believe it is a DESIGN defect. Look at the KBs. They happened in the .40, and now the .45. They dont happen in the 9mm. The gun was designed as a 9mm, and thats the only way Id buy one. The .45 is nowhere near a high pressure round, there is no explainable reason for the gun to KB except for a manufacturer fault.
I feel they are making a mstake going with the 9mm, and sticking with the Glock, as there are so many more options out there.
IMO< a police issue weapon that blows up once is gone. Period.
And I do believe it is a DESIGN defect. Look at the KBs. They happened in the .40, and now the .45. They dont happen in the 9mm. The gun was designed as a 9mm, and thats the only way Id buy one. The .45 is nowhere near a high pressure round, there is no explainable reason for the gun to KB except for a manufacturer fault.
I feel they are making a mstake going with the 9mm, and sticking with the Glock, as there are so many more options out there.
I'll second lilysdad...
on just about everything he said. These guns have been blowing up ever since the .40's came out, and that 14-year stream of NCIC teletypes describing these incidents isn't the result of some vast "anti-Glock" conspiracy within law enforcement. This stuff is happening. Glock isn't admitting squat, or recalling squat. They will, however, fix/replace your former firearm if you still have enough fingers left to box the plastic shrapnel up, and send it in.
It amazes me is that regardless of these facts, law enforcement agencies are still buyng them- and what amazes me even more is that officers haven't flatly refused to carry them. I guess I shoudn't be suprised; LE has been trying to avoid hiring the "gunwise" for a couple of decades now, and it looks like most of the old dogs like me are about gone.
Woof, woof. Save your breath, Fido. Nobody's listening.
on just about everything he said. These guns have been blowing up ever since the .40's came out, and that 14-year stream of NCIC teletypes describing these incidents isn't the result of some vast "anti-Glock" conspiracy within law enforcement. This stuff is happening. Glock isn't admitting squat, or recalling squat. They will, however, fix/replace your former firearm if you still have enough fingers left to box the plastic shrapnel up, and send it in.
It amazes me is that regardless of these facts, law enforcement agencies are still buyng them- and what amazes me even more is that officers haven't flatly refused to carry them. I guess I shoudn't be suprised; LE has been trying to avoid hiring the "gunwise" for a couple of decades now, and it looks like most of the old dogs like me are about gone.
Woof, woof. Save your breath, Fido. Nobody's listening.
- Status
Similar threads
