Will Striker Fired Pistols w/ Short and Light Triggers Cause More Acc Discharges ?

[Hangingrock]

Just my opinion. The people that use the term Accident are often more so looking for wiggle room to absolve themselves of Negligence.

 

[ATLDave]

Just my opinion. The people that use the term Accident are often more so looking for wiggle room to absolve themselves of Negligence.

Then those people aren't very bright, as accidents can (and often are) caused by negligence. Accident refers to intent, negligence refers to level of care. They are certainly not opposites.

 

[TwinReverb]

I can attest to the drop it in the purse scenario: that's my mother in law. Good thing she doesn't chamber a round on her G43.

 

[Zerodefect]

So you've never made a mistake? Never banged your thumb with a hammer? Never had a fender bender? People are human. We (and you) make mistakes. Believing you are exempt from making one with a gun is pretty arrogant.

.

Making mistakes around guns, is not acceptable. That's why others are going straight to calling it negligence. People who make mistakes as serious as such, get punted from my circle quickly.

If your "mistake" goes through someones chest, you'll be on trial for negligence leading to involuntary manslaughter, not "Whoops, my bad.".

To make light of it, and call it "just" a mistake that happens, is not a good idea right now.

 

[jrdolall]

We recently had a court decision regarding a traffic "accident". A lady ran a red light, hit another car, and killed the man driving. She was not drinking, texting or anything else. Just ran through the light. She was found not guilty of anything, other than running the light, and there is a big uproar around here. I personally think that she was negligent since there was no mention of faulty brakes. I don't know any of the affected parties but it has been all over the local news(and Facebook so it must be true).
I question how this can be termed an accident and she walked away free and clear(other than her conscience and let's not downplay the importance of that). I guess since there was no "intent" the judge determined that she couldn't be held accountable.
Whether we call it negligence or an accident is, I guess, irrelevant. If your actions, though unintentional, cause harm then you are liable for damages. A gun AD/ND is generally caused through negligence except on those rare occasions when there is a mechanical malfunction, thinking Remington 700.

 

[ATLDave]

We recently had a court decision regarding a traffic "accident". A lady ran a red light, hit another car, and killed the man driving. She was not drinking, texting or anything else. Just ran through the light. She was found not guilty of anything, other than running the light, and there is a big uproar around here. I personally think that she was negligent since there was no mention of faulty brakes. I don't know any of the affected parties but it has been all over the local news(and Facebook so it must be true).

I don't know anything about the case to which you're referring, but I suspect you're talking about the CRIMINAL proceedings, which are separate from the CIVIL proceedings. The killed man's family will surely bring a CIVIL suit alleging negligence against the driver, which would impose monetary liability - unless the driver's insurance carrier, anticipating that suit, has already settled by paying the victim's family a sum of money the family deemed sufficient.

 

[jrdolall]

I understand that and this was the criminal case where she was found not guilty. I haven't heard anything about a civil case as those tend to be a bit more quiet than the criminal case. I imagine there will be a settlement.

 

[TwinReverb]

I personally think the whole "no safety" is something the anti gun crowd thought up. The Glock indeed has a safety. Not saying the O.P. is an anti gun person, just saying i think that's where it comes from.

 

[Bobson]

Will Striker Fired Pistols with Short/Light Triggers Cause More ADs?

Will they cause more ADs?
- No. A gun doesn't cause itself to be fired.

Will there be more ADs with these guns than with other guns?
- Yeah, I believe there will be, just by the very nature of people. Among those carrying guns, some will choose striker fired guns with short/light triggers. Some of those people won't use a proper holster. Some who do use a proper holster will use it improperly, or be reckless in re-holstering their guns. Some of these latter people will have ADs, where they probably wouldn't if using a DAO revolver or other pistol with a long, heavy trigger. Is that the gun's fault? Not in any way, shape, or form.

 

[mavracer]

It always comes back to training and yes they do because of the idea that you don't have to put as much training in because you don't have to sweep safety.

 

[ATLDave]

I personally think the whole "no safety" is something the anti gun crowd thought up. The Glock indeed has a safety. Not saying the O.P. is an anti gun person, just saying i think that's where it comes from.

??? You cannot seriously believe that. Or maybe you are too young to remember the days before Glocks, when the huge, huge, huge majority of semi-automatic pistols (like rifles and shotguns) came with a safety (by which people meant an external, selectable safety).

 

[JTQ]

ATLDave wrote,
??? You cannot seriously believe that. Or maybe you are too young to remember the days before Glocks, when the huge, huge, huge majority of semi-automatic pistols (like rifles and shotguns) came with a safety (by which people meant an external, selectable safety).

I agree.

Everybody has an opinion why the US chose the Beretta M9 in the last pistol go around back in the 1980's, but I think one of the main reasons it beat out the SIG was the Beretta had a safety. In the early 1980's a semi-auto pistol without a safety was truly an oddity. Dumping the 1911 after decades of proven service, and replacing it with a double action, double column, 9MM was controversial enough for the times. Imagine getting a gun that didn't have a safety. Cats and dogs living together.

Thirty years later, we have a generation and a half of folks that have shot nothing but guns like SIG's, Glock's, M&P's, XD's, etc., without a manual safety. Even the guys that are General's now, spent their entire shooting lives with guns without a manual safety.

 

[TwinReverb]

??? You cannot seriously believe that. Or maybe you are too young to remember the days before Glocks, when the huge, huge, huge majority of semi-automatic pistols (like rifles and shotguns) came with a safety (by which people meant an external, selectable safety).

No I'm saying the phrase, the accusation, not the concept. Yes, i remember when almost all pistols had a safety lever. Usually the only people i hear, in my limited experience, break out the whole "Glocks have no safety" logic are the anti gun crowd, and usually in conjunction with an ND.

But the phrase needs to end. Glocks have an external safety, just not in lever form like hi powers, 1911s, M9s, and their clones, or button form like some revolvers.

To say Glocks don't have an external safety is not correct: they have a safety and it's external, just not a "traditional" lever.

I'm not saying you or anyone else is lying or anti gun, on this forum.

 

[ATLDave]

For a long time, the term "safety" in connection with a firearm meant an off-switch. A "drop safety" was a separate phrase, but when people spoke of "a safety" or "the safety," they meant an off-switch. Glocks don't have an off switch, and it is perfectly true, under the traditional usage, to say that Glocks don't have a safety.

 

[Hangingrock]

Were not the Glocks introduced in to the United States market place in the late nineteen-eighties? Thus after a quarter century plus some odd years no ones wrapped their heads around the operating principles of the Glock safety system.

I guess the same individuals had problems with the DA/SA semiautomatic designs such as the SIG with the decocker or the S&W design which utilizes the Walther slide mounted lever that operates differently by positioning up in order to fire.

Now were the same individuals mystified by the DAO semiautomatic design minus an external safety lever? That's right it mimicked a revolver in usage thus not a problem.

Now we come to the 1911 series pistols with the frame mounted safety lever along with grip safety. But then we have the Browning HP which dispensed with the grip safety,

I always thought the trait of human's was thier adaptability but apparently not. So if it doesn't operate like a 1911 series pistol confusion is the order of the day?????

 

[TwinReverb]

For a long time, the term "safety" in connection with a firearm meant an off-switch. A "drop safety" was a separate phrase, but when people spoke of "a safety" or "the safety," they meant an off-switch. Glocks don't have an off switch, and it is perfectly true, under the traditional usage, to say that Glocks don't have a safety.

They have a safety. Try moving the trigger without pressing the safety button.

A lever won't make an irresponsible person less or more responsible. And as someone who had never owned guns before, buying Glock as my first gun, i can say even a newbie can handle a Glock if they pay attention to instructions.

I am military and i see 18 and 19 year old men and women, with sufficient training, work around running jet engines that will eat you for breakfast and doing just fine. People are either paying attention or not. We don't let people in the USAF use excuses like not paying attention. People can be responsible with potentially deadly things if we don't buy their excuses.

So semantics aside, Glocks do indeed have a safety and a round chambered indicator. If that's not enough for them, maybe guns are not for them.

I get what you're saying, and i believe you, but my experience tells me that I'm doing fine with my Glocks, not because I'm lucky, or because I'm an exception to the rule, but because people can be responsible. Therefore I'm inclined to think the Glock safety is both external and a safety, and that a lever safety can be a crutch. If they follow general gun principles, they'll be fine.

Besides, don't we teach people to not depend upon the safety? Not to point the gun at anything we don't want to shoot?

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

There is always a portion of the population that isn't quite as proficient or careful as they should be when they use any dangerous thing. People who use striker fired pistols are more likely to accidentally fire their gun in a few different situations. So, if more people buy striker fired pistols, there should be more accidental discharges.

DA/SA, DAO, and guns with manual safeties all require more practice to become proficient with them. If you aren't good with a double action trigger you might miss with your first shot and accidentally shoot something you didn't want to shoot. For me, DA triggers are simply too long for my fingers. When you shoot guns with manual safeties you have to habitually train to flick the safety off and then fire. If you aren't proficient you run the risk of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger with no bang to show for it.

I can think of three situations where a DA/SA, DAO, or a gun with a manual safety would be appreciated. If you trip, you are less likely to accidentally pop off a shot with a DA/SA or DAO and a gun with a manual safety won't fire at all in that situation. If you holster your gun without making sure sticks, debris, draw strings, and so on are kept away from the trigger, a manual thumb safety or a thumb on the back of a decocked hammer can save you from shooting yourself. If you accidentally point a gun at someone you don't want to shoot a DA/SA or DAO might give you a fraction of a second more to change your mind before the gun fires.

Ultimately, it is still your fault for not watching where you are walking, watching how you holster your pistol, or pointing your gun at someone and starting to pull the trigger before you have even established that they are a threat. But, nobody should criticize you for opting for a gun that serves you better in the way you need to use it.

They have a safety. Try moving the trigger without pressing the safety button.

It is a lever, not a button. But, you and I both know that nothing that can get caught in the trigger guard will be so precisely oriented that it will pull the trigger and not the trigger safety. The purpose of the trigger safety on a Glock, XD, M&P, and so on is to function as part of the drop safety. Without the trigger safety the trigger can move to the rear, causing the trigger bar to move to the rear, causing the firing pin block to be deactivated and the sear to slip off the trigger bar (i.e. *bang*). But, a drop safety is not equivalent to a manual safety. Series 70 Colts do not have a drop safety and can fire if they are dropped, muzzle-down, from high enough even if the safety is engaged. Series 80 Colts have a firing pin block that prevents the firing pin from moving unless the trigger is pulled (and in a 1911, the trigger can't be pulled unless the thumb safety is disengaged).

I am pro-striker and the majority of the guns I own are striker-fired. However, the trigger safety on a Glock or similar gun is not able to serve the user in the same way that a manual thumb safety can serve the user if the user trips, or if something gets caught in the trigger guard. Of course, if either of those things happen that is still the user's fault. But, it is really nice to have because sometimes, in a life or death situation, your attention might not be on the obstacles on the ground.

 

[TwinReverb]

It's all good. IMag and ATLDave. I'm not saying either of you are wrong so much as I'm sick of Glock being demonized for daring to "not come with a safety." It works just fine for me and thousands of others.

 

[ATLDave]

See my much earlier post. Nobody is "demonizing" Glocks. Some of us are willing to rationally discuss whether the lack of a safety (as that term was traditionally used) increases the likelihood of an AD/ND in the event of some operator error.

As for the claim that we train people not to point the gun at anything they don't want to shoot, I think you will find that a very high percentage of users muzzle themselves (leg or foot most commonly) during holstering and unholstering. In fact, a majority of civilian-type holsters have the gun muzzling some portion of the body when at rest or when seated.

Should anyone ever "rely" on a safety? No. But I don't "rely" on the airbags in my car, either - I still try not to drive into bridge abutments or telephone poles. Yet I still like having airbags, even though they theoretically represent a "point of failure" for a pretty important piece of equipment (I'm much more likely to save my own life or the life of a loved one using my car than a gun, and the same is true for pretty much anyone else).

I'm not anti-Glock. If people want to use them, that's fine. I do object to some of their marketing, which falsely suggests that a traditional safety imposes some delay on the use of a pistol. And the necessary implication that guns should be stored loaded - after all, if flicking off a safety takes too much time, surely inserting a mag and racking a slide is WAY too much, right? Well, that's the thinking that leads people to stash loaded guns out of their direct control, which I think is unwise.

But the guns themselves? They're fine. Just recognize that, particularly when it comes to holstering and other situations where you're trying NOT to cause the gun to discharge (which is 99.99+% of the time), you're working without a net.

 

[TwinReverb]

Fair enough, ATLDave. A problem i find in the way some users or newbies behave that bothers me is they simply don't think of the possible outcomes or ramifications of their actions.

For instance, only once have i carried a Glock without a holster, and it was due to a wardrobe malfunction. When i did, it was with trigger not forward, no round chambered.

If the gun is in the safe, a round is chambered. I only go chambered when i am absolutely certain my holster or use of the gun is completely safe. Otherwise, unchambered. I pay attention when i holster my gun.

The problem is human, not Glock. Like the old adage goes, you can't fix stupid, or in this case, inattentive.

 

[Homerboy]

Glocks are less forgiving of human error. And we are all human. Those who say mishandling a gun is unacceptable are correct, but it doesn't stop it from happening daily. I no longer shoot at my range on weekends. I got tired of leaving due to the unsafe habits of the shooters.

On another forum, some guy was mocking those who choose a weapon with a manual safety. He was telling everybody to "take a class". He had taken TWO of them, taught by some Marine. So this Marine tells this guy that a safety WOULD (not COULD) get him killed, and he advised the guy to carry his Beretta PX4
With the hammer back in single action, and safety off! Said it was no different than a Glock.

People screw up. Glocks and other striker fired no safety (the Glock doesn't have a safety. I used to own 2 Glocks. The only way I could avoid pulling that trigger without pressing the lever was by hooking a wire hanger to the very top of the trigger. There is pretty much no way to NOT press that lever if something gets in there) weapons make that screw up more likely to result in a round fired when it was not intended.

 

[jrdolall]

What are these Glocks everyone is talking about? Some new type of gun?

 

[MCgunner]

What are these Glocks everyone is talking about? Some new type of gun?

You're asking ME? Hell, I still prefer my revolvers. The inherent safety of a DA revolver is comforting in a world dominated by Murphy's law. I still practice personal gun safety, makes things that much safer. Safety is important to me, maybe not to you all, but it is to me. I used to teach it to 4Hers. I just like my carry weapon to be as safe as possible, too.

My autos are either DA/decocker or DAO. I know how to fire a DA gun effectively, been doing it for a while, now. I don't need no stinkiin' Glock to hit something. Revolvers still work, ya know, but, you have to practice.

 

[MCgunner]

Making mistakes around guns, is not acceptable. That's why others are going straight to calling it negligence. People who make mistakes as serious as such, get punted from my circle quickly.

If your "mistake" goes through someones chest, you'll be on trial for negligence leading to involuntary manslaughter, not "Whoops, my bad.".

To make light of it, and call it "just" a mistake that happens, is not a good idea right now.

All the more reason I'll never own a "safe action" gun. It greatly reduces the likelihood of Murphy's law affecting me with dire consequences, no matter how infallible I might think my gun handling is.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

This thread is sure humming along, some have already reiterated my thoughts but here is my 2 cents, respectfully.

These are the rules I was raised with, educated on, and trained on that direct back to the OP.

1. There is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge, only negligent discharges.

2. keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire, if you are training with a striker fired gun or any pistol, drawing from a holster or concealment and immediately training your finger on the trigger at the draw, you are setting yourself up for failure.

3. light striker fired triggers are no less susceptible to negligent discharges than a SA, DA/SA gun with no external safety engaged. Refer you back to Rule 2.

4. If you are carrying a gun, it needs to be in a holster or other minimalist holster that COVERS the trigger guard. When carrying I don't toss guns in bags or pockets that don't have a holster or something that prevents anything from entering the trigger guard. There are plenty of options, some very good options. Raven Concealment Vanguard and VG2 comes to mind.

5. A safety is a mechanical device that is subject to failure and should never replace the basic fundamental firearms safety rules.

Just my thoughts and honest opinions.