Yet another Glock safety question

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see how it happened now.

The Glock PR people convinced about two MILLION people to buy their product even though it is a worthless POS that only a Kool-Aid drinking 16 year old would assume is quality.

They must have some really good people working in their PR dept to do this.

Perhaps Hillary could hire a few of them to make her look better to the American people.
 
I have a better idea. :D

I could buy out the Jennings company and hire a former Glock PR person and I could become very rich very quickly.

Soon the Jennings would be in the holsters of about 60% of the PD's and Feds in this country and millions of citizens would be proud owners of my pot metal Jennings.

After all the average gun owner does not have enough brains to know if the gun works or not according to a few of you and they rely on PR hype to make their choice.

It is not like that anyone would really go to the range and really shoot one of these and be able to make up their own minds. :what:
 
Ahhhhh... The Kool-Aid is still flowing....

You guys make my point better than I.

No where have I said the Glock is a "worthless POS," (it's obviously not), and my "ego" is confined to the bedroom with the Missus. The ego's I see here are the Glock apologists.

Years ago, we would discuss the various pros and cons of guns, all with an attitude towards how things could be improved. Smith and Wesson made some terrible guns in the 70's and 80's, which they did not admit to at the time. Although I carried one at the time, I didn't try and defend their mistakes. Nobody's gun was "Perfection", and that's still true.

Reasonable, experienced, gun folks have issues with Glock. Name calling doesn't change that.
 
"Reasonable, experienced, gun folks have issues with Glock. Name calling doesn't change that."

Many Reasonable, experienced, gun folks also pick Glocks above all others because they ARE good reliable guns.

Name calling doesn't change that.
 
And many who carry them won't admit to any shortcomings on the part of the gun, and post continuously at anyone who suggests otherwise. :neener:

Go ahead and get the last word.... I'm through.... :)
 
Bobby Lee..

It is interesting you said in your post #55.. "Reasonable, experienced, gun folks have issues with Glock. Name calling doesn't change that." Let's see if I get this right now. You belief is only "reasonable and experienced gun folks can have issues with a Glock". You infer though that, "those who don't own a Glock, (but have comments that you don't like).. well they must be "IGNORANT"! Is that correct?

Your last post directed toward me was.. "Such posters as Mr Firestar who has already proved to me that he knows NOTHING about a Glock and has also admitted that he basically knows nothing about any gun but his own Firestar has any business in this conversation.

If he is not aware that Glocks are good reliable pistols then that just proves his ignorance."

My questions to you, Bobby Lee, are.. "How have I proven to you that I know nothing about Glocks, just because I've asked you to show me FACTS to back up your statements (in your previous posts) that Glocks are BETTER!

Please show me where I have made the statement on this web site, (or any other for that matter), where I have admitted.. "basically knowing nothing about any gun other than my FireStar"?

And lastly.. why is it "I don't have any business in this conversation"? I can say in all truthfulness, Bobby Lee, that I'm willing to use my 2A rights so that you may use your 1A's.. but you don't offer me the same.

Oh yes.. getting back to the beginning of my post. You know. The part where you're against name calling. You did say I was "IGNORANT".. didn't you?

FireStar_M40
 
FireStar,

Not arguing with your rights to be here AT ALL - but please try to read the posts completely...and try not misconstrue the poster's intent - Lee did NOT say Glocks were 'without a doubt' BETTER then ALL other guns (although he eventually did say that about Stars). I believe his intended point was Glocks are gemerally as good as other top brands, and maybe even better then some other brands - I happen to agree with that point (there are ALOT of other guns out there) though I do NOT like them personally (bad grip angle). He also made the point in another comment you referred incorrectly to that it was up to the USER to decide what HE thought was BETTER - not someone else to tell him what is better. Nor did he originate that only 'Reasonable, experienced, gun folks have issues with Glock' - he quoted a previous post and turned it around- effectively I believe.

Seems he also takes offense to someone with no personal Glock experience bad-mouthing Glocks.

OK, continue the discussion please.. :)
 
Oh well I guess I'd better give my $.02

I have a glock 20, owned it since '95.
Carried it in a sidearmor IWB for about 6 months CCW.

Stupid people may have problems with trigger discipline upon reholster.

However, I have a hard time training my t-shirts to have trigger discipline, especially when they insist upon getting themselves holstered with the pistol. When that happens I generally almost $%&# my pants because it's a possibility that t-shirt could get caught on the trigger mechanism.

Perhaps the Sidearmor with a belt loop was a bad choice, I should have gotten a J-hook with it so the glock would never have to leave the holster (stupid policy with work).

Anyways, for the past couple of months I've been carryiing something different (but still 10mm). I personally feel safer with a manual safety. Training is important with any pistol.
 
Wow!

I've heard about AD's or UD's with the Glock, always being caused by "stupid morons" who shoudn't own any firearm, and I've heard about all the bad ammo companies always being responsible for Glocks blowing up. But this is the first time I've heard about "T" shirts going out of their way to cause problems for the Glock!!

Good thing though, otherwise someone here would put you in the "stupid moron" category.

Poor Glock... when you're "Perfection", everyone's out to get you.......

:rolleyes:
 
FireStar,

"Not arguing with your rights to be here AT ALL - but please try to read the posts completely...and try not misconstrue the poster's intent - Lee did NOT say Glocks were 'without a doubt' BETTER then ALL other guns (although he eventually did say that about Stars). I believe his intended point was Glocks are gemerally as good as other top brands, and maybe even better then some other brands - I happen to agree with that point (there are ALOT of other guns out there) though I do NOT like them personally (bad grip angle). He also made the point in another comment you referred incorrectly to that it was up to the USER to decide what HE thought was BETTER - not someone else to tell him what is better. Nor did he originate that only 'Reasonable, experienced, gun folks have issues with Glock' - he quoted a previous post and turned it around- effectively I believe.

Seems he also takes offense to someone with no personal Glock experience bad-mouthing Glocks."


Thank you shield20.

It would help a lot if some people could read.
 
I'm confused. Personally I can think of many guns I would rather not own intead of a Glock. Sigma's comes to mind as well as a few others but I don't see those users getting all up tight about me saying so.

I mean be it Sigma's, LLama's, Kel Tec's, Hi-Point's or Glocks, what's it to you how I might think about them? :neener:
 
I mean be it Sigma's, LLama's, Kel Tec's, Hi-Point's or Glocks, what's it to you how I might think about them?

Well.... Kinda think that's point of this board is to share opinions.....

And I have owned Glocks, and I might own another.

My posts have been mainly about the Glock faithful taking umbrage at any criticism of the gun.

It's where the "Kool-Aid drinker" term came from.

I own a bunch of guns. And you could point out problems or design flaws with most of them, ('cept for Daddy's shotgun). And you'd probably be right.....
 
Ah, the old chicken or egg conundrum, a.k.a. The Glock Vicious Cycle. Which came first, the unreasonable Glock critic, or the defensive Glock apologist, or the guy that got annoyed by unreasonable Glock critics, or the guy that got annoyed by defensive Glock apologists, ad nauseam. :banghead:

Elmer, you may have some experience with firearms (and strong opinions as a result of those experiences), but you come off as juvenile as the "Kool-aid drinkers" you so scorn. What do you expect when your first post baits Glockophiles by deriding Glocks as "tupperware," and your subsequent posts go downhill from there? You're much more a part of the problem than you are a part of the discussion. Have you ended any of your posts w/o some kind of juvenile "last word?" If this thread is closed--and I hope it is--it will be largely because of you. :rolleyes:

Bobby Lee, you need to chill. When you come off that hot and heavy in defense of Glocks, the Glock trolls are awakened. Don't incite them, don't get dragged down to their level. If you like your Glock, fine, so do I. Just remember what they say about opinions and orifices: Not all of them are well-formed.

As for the original discussion, I'm also of the opinion that Glocks are not inherently unsafe but are also more unforgiving of operator error. JMHO, YMMV, etc.
 
Well... Ok, Bam. You're entitled to your opinion....

My Glock friends use the term Tactical Tupperware to describe their pistols. Sorry if it offended you.

Where have I called folks "morons", or "idiots" in this forum?

And my "strong opinions" have to do with the lack of civil discussion regarding the Glock's arguable problems.

Maybe you should read all of my posts before you come out swinging.....
 
Elmer, you may have some experience with firearms (and strong opinions as a result of those experiences), but you come off as juvenile as the "Kool-aid drinkers" you so scorn. What do you expect when your first post baits Glockophiles by deriding Glocks as "tupperware," and your subsequent posts go downhill from there? You're much more a part of the problem than you are a part of the discussion. Have you ended any of your posts w/o some kind of juvenile "last word?"

I thought I was the only one who noticed ;) .
 
I am issued a Glock 35. I carry it in a pretty secure holster and its a very decent duty gun. It goes bang when I pull the trigger, the bullet goes where its supposed to and it doesn't rust. Before we went to issue guns, I carried a Wilson Master Grade 130 .45 1911 for many years. I really like the idea of a manual safety. I like the idea that if some neandrathal gets that gun away from me it may buy me a few seconds to invalidate his birth certificate with my 642. That being said, the holster we are issued is pretty secure and the biggest change I have made is that the gun doesn't come out of the holster as much as the Govt model did. I think alot of Officers that lose their guns lose them from their hand, not from the holster. I have no stats to back that up, but, I know its alot easier to get a gun out of someones hand than out of a secure holster.

I also have a Glock 23 as an off duty gun. I don't always want to put on a holster just for a quick trip to the grocery store and am prone to just shoving a gun in my waistband and covering it with a T shirt. Also, I have two little guys that live with me. They are exceptionally good about gun safety, but, if dads gun were to fall out of his waistband while playing around, a kids finger in the trigger guard of a Glock while he picks it up to "help" you could certainly make a Glock go off. I don't think it would a DA Revolver and certainly not my P7M8 that I occasionally carry.

My solution was to have this installed on my 23: http://www.cominolli.com/glocksafety.htm
It works the same way as a Govt model safety..in other words, the right way, down to shoot. I practice with it alot. If I accidently wipe the imaginary safety off my duty gun when I need to shoot, it won't hurt anything. I know have an off duty gun that I feel is very safe, won't rust, is reliable, accurate, uses the same ammo as my duty gun and I can use the big mags in it if I want to. Just a thout for anyone that wants one more level of protection on a Glock for whatever reason. I agree the holster is part of the safety of a Glock, I simply used this safety instead of the holster...
 
I think a NY1 (at a bare minimum) or preferably a Cominolli safety is a great idea on any Glock that is used for concealed carried (and would probably reduce the number of "Glock legs").
 
Does the term "Glock Leg" mean anything to you?
A term used by many police depatments more and more.
Never heard the term "Sig leg", "Revolver Leg", "XD-9 Leg", "H&K leg" or "1911 Leg" before. Have you?
Another point of interest, why is it that "The Guy that should never own a firearm because he's not safety conscience enough, needs more training, or can never keep his finger off the trigger" ALWAYS buy's a Glock? Regardless of all the other firearms he may own, it's ALWAYS the Glock that he stupidly accidently fires.
Just some points to ponder.
 
While I'm in the mood to chat some, doesn't it strike anyone else a little odd, that the major police departments in our country have problems with the so called "Glocks safety features" and will not issue them to their officers unless they are modified from their orginal intended design?
 
While I'm in the mood to chat some, doesn't it strike anyone else a little odd, that the major police departments in our country have problems with the so called "Glocks safety features" and will not issue them to their officers unless they are modified from their orginal intended design?

What modifications do the major police departments do? None of ours are modified in any way.
 
What modifications do the major police departments do? None of ours are modified in any way.

SGT127 they put a heavier trigger spring in. Normally close to that of a revolver's pull. :)
I can appreciate your concern sir. If you do a web search on Glock accidental discharges you'll find numerous accounts. Some below are listed.
Thanks for asking. :)

New York Trigger
A “New York trigger” is a trigger on guns to make it harder to fire. This was intended to cut down on accidental shootings. A “New York trigger” is harder to pull because it’s heavier than other triggers. The term began with the Glock.
...
...
...
...
14 July 1991, Boston Globe:
“There was conversation about it being a `New York trigger,’ that it fired too easily,” said McGee, making a reference to troubles that police in New York City have had with faulty firing mechanisms in 9mm handguns.
...
...
11 March 1999, Memphis (TN) Commercial Appeal, pg. B1:
Dobbins agreed with the defense attorneys who contended that the Glock model 22 Nichelson had requires considerably less pressure to pull the trigger than some other service weapons and that some other police departments have modified the pistol with a so-called “New York trigger” to make it harder to fire. It wasn’t known if the Millington Police Department uses the device.
...
...
8 June 1999, The Record (Northern New Jersey), pg. L16:
The Glock is available with various trigger bars that set the pressure necessary to activate the trigger at between 4 and 12 pounds of pressure; many competition firearms have 2- to 3.5-pound trigger pulls. When it decided on the Glock, New York City requested a device that has become known as the “New York trigger,” making the trigger require approximately 12 pounds of pressure. This is about the amount of pressure required to activate the trigger on a revolver. In short, the only way to fire a Glock is to pull the trigger.
...
...
...
Sheriff's Deputy Accidentally Shoots Self, Other Officer
Local 6 TV - WKMG (Fla) ^ | 3/28/05 | n/a


Posted on 03/29/2005 8:38:34 AM PST by kiriath_jearim


POSTED: 5:53 pm EST March 28, 2005

UPDATED: 6:05 pm EST March 28, 2005

Two sheriff's deputies in Lake County, Fla., were shot and injured when an officer's gun accidentally discharged while training, according to a Lake County Sheriff's Office release.

The report said Deputy Jason Williams accidentally discharged a department issued Glock handgun at the Lake Tech Institute of Public Safety Driving & Firearms Range.

The discharged bullet struck deputy Williams in the hand and then struck Deputy Sheriff Richard Light in the lower leg, the report said.

The injuries are not life-threating and both officers were transported to Florida Hospital Waterman for treatment.

An investigation into the incident is ongoing, according to the report.



The Diallo Index

by Ward Harkavy
February 9 - 15, 2000 alert me by e-mail
write to us
e-mail story
printer friendly




Minimum number of feet a Glock bullet travels in one second (unless it strikes an object or a person): 1148

Glock semiautomatic pistols manufactured before 1983: 0

Glock semiautomatic pistols sold in the United States between 1983 and 1996: 1.2 million

Number of Glocks sold per month in 1995: 20,000

Share of U.S. law-enforcement market Glock had in 1984: 0

Percentage of U.S. law-enforcement market Glock had in 1997: 60-65

Accidental discharges of Glocks by District of Columbia police during the decade beginning in 1988: 120+

D.C. police who accidentally shot themselves or others in the same period: 19

Number of years starting in 1988 that firearms experts warned D.C. police officials about the Glock's "light trigger" and its propensity to fire an unintentional shot when handled incorrectly: 10

Year that the FBI gave Glock low marks for safety and cited a "high potential for unintentional shots": 1988

Year NYPD modified Glock triggers to require a more forceful finger tug to fire them: 1990

Number of months pregnant an Asbury Park, New Jersey, cop's girlfriend was when he accidentally shot her in January 1997 while unloading his Glock 9mm handgun in their bedroom: 7


Millions of dollars in total expenditures by the New York Police Department in 1998: 2399

Dollars a D.C. detective was ordered to pay a fellow detective for accidentally shooting him in the stomach with a Glock inside police headquarters: 880,000

Number of dollars D.C. taxpayers spent on 4300 Glock semiautomatic pistols: 1,000,000

Estimated number of Glock semiautomatic handguns issued to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation law-enforcement officers and later sold at a profit by individual officers to outsiders: 700

Top police gun prone to accidental firing

But Glock gags those who have settled suits

By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery


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."


Just to name a very SMALL amount of problems that some police deptaments have with "Glocks safeties." I hope you remain safe friend. on you dangerous job as a police man. Take care.
 
Last edited:
It never occured to me that ours are indeed modified. The G35 is supposed to have a 3.5# trigger. Ours have 5# triggers. Hmmm. Interestingly, my Govt Model had about a 4# trigger and I would never think of carrying it with the thumb safety off. 4thHorseman, If you check out the link in my post, theres another article on Cominollis home page about the Syracuse PD. And thanks for your concern, take care of yourself as well.
 
Heavier triggers are installed on many PD Glocks because the average cop knows about as much about handling a firearm as I know about flying the space shuttle.

Most are poorly trained and not to bright to start with when it comes to firearms. Also a few are just morons to start with just like every other group of people. Just because they are "police officers" does not make them firearms experts and it also does not make them intelligent.

The few cops that are into guns such as the few that post on this board should not need a heavy trigger.

They have enough brains not to pull the trigger unless they intend to fire the pistol.

Idiots have no business with a Glock no matter what they do for a living so perhaps it is not wise to issue Glocks to PD's.

That does not mean that those of us that have over half a brain can not safely carry a Glock no matter if we wear a badge or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top