Glock Safety

[Guest jackdog]

Much as been said about the Glock pistols in regard to safety, so here is Jackdogs opinion on this issue.

By design a Glock pistol is a totally safe firearm only if the operator is a totally safe operator.

Where Glocks become an issue is when people start retrofitting there Glocks with all the after market do dads. Worst of these is the trigger connector change. Glocks are designed the way they are for a reason. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The glock trigger does take some getting used to. I highly recommend countless hours of SAFE and perfectly correct dry fire practice, to learn the Glock trigger system.

Re-holstering a glock pistol is probably were most people screw up. Thumb strap style holsters require the operator to holster his weapon in a manner that will stop the thumb strap from entering the trigger guard.

S&W M&P series and KeL-tec are a lot like Glocks in the way the function.

With exception that Glocks have an enormous amount of after market available changes. Stay away from anything that is not stock Glock. A 3.5 pound trigger is no faster than a 5.0 trigger pull, and they lead I would think to Id's. Let us not blame a solid fire arm because people are either unsafe, stupid or want to tinker. The only exception to the above that I might entertain would be a barrel change, that would offer better chamber support.

that being said, Ive fired 1000's of rounds through my glocks and this has never been an issue. I inspect my barrels using a high powered magnifying glass during routine cleaning, look for any signs of failure or wear.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

Thanks for the info jackdog!

[Guest Len]

Well-said Jack!

One can throw a Glock from the top of a tall building in +1 configuration and it will not fire, nor will it likely be damaged beyond functionality. From what I have read, most ADs with Glocks have to do with people putting their finger inside the trigger guard when they are not supposed to. Either that, or the holster situation Jack mentions. Proper training & practice -including reading the manual of arms, proper equipment (holster, Glock-only mags, etc), and finger off the trigger will virtually ensure no ADs.

And as Jack suggests, dont mess with your Glock! Just my

[Guest GlocKingTN]

Sounds like a lot of common sense to me!

[Guest jackdog]

Common sense seems to be a rare commodity in todays world

[Guest GlocKingTN]

Common sense seems to be a rare commodity in todays world

Rare isnt the word, more like invisible!

[Guest Hyaloid]

The best safety for firearm use is located securely between the user's ears.

[Guest LegalRaptor]

:up:My first personal defense firearm was a Glock 19, and I still love the gun. I carry the M&Pc 40, but have nothing bad to say about the Glock. The weapon is safe, the operator is the risky factor.

[Guest drewi]

Good advice Jackdog.

I think people put those 3.5 lb connectors on their gun because they think it will help them shoot better. It might seem so, but for the most part I think it just covers up poor trigger control.

I fell into that same trap with the light trigger stuff. That's one of the reasons I was fascniated with 1911's for so long. I could shoot better with single action triggers and Glocks with 3.5's. It turned out I was just shooting bad, and once I corrected my poor habits I was able to shoot just fine without a 1911 and without a 3.5 lb connector in a Glock.

Glocks get a bad wrap because they don't have a manual safety. Most of the stories I've heard or read about have one thing in common. Someone placing a finger on the trigger before they got on target. Or perhaps there was no target at all. They were sitting at their desk or showing a bunch of kids the gun in a classroom.

Glocks a like revolvers in that they don't have a external safety. And revolvers have been carried for years and years (by now Glocks have too). I think the only thing that is debatable here is the proper weight of the trigger pull on a gun with no safety. The trigger pull on a stock Glock is roughly half of the weight of a revolver trigger. Is that too light?

I've been ND free for my whole shooting career. I sure hope it stays that way. I know the odds are stacked against me as much as I am around guns.

Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard unless your sights are on the target and you're ready to shoot. And for most situations there's no need to reholster your sidearm as fast as you drew it. Slow down when reholstering. And if you're sporting an IWB with an untucked shirt, clear the shirt before you reholster.

[Guest jackdog]

Good advice drew, especially the reholster part.

[G17]

Stock is Slow- Racing Glocks Rock !!!!!!!

G34

G17

G19

Edited September 10, 2009 by G17

[Guest Archimedes]

The only thing better than a Glock is 5 Glocks.

~Archi

[Marswolf]

Oh dear....

I don't normally copy my postings from one board to another, but I've been on a rant about this over on HK94 and a couple of posts pretty much sum up my feelings about Glocks. I'll try to combine them. I know this won't change any minds but it puts my views on record.

This started with a story about a veteran cop shooting (and killing) himself with his Glock. http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-3/117497492799530.xml&coll=3

Got the typical crap about how Glocks are safe if you just keep your finger off the trigger that is the mantra of Glock religionists.

One guy posted that not clearing the action properly and having the assembled weapon pointing at your chest while cleaning would be equally deadly with any brand of handgun. I responded that this isn't true. "If I start to clean my USP and it still has a round in the chamber I don't have to pull the trigger to take down the weapon and the handgun will not discharge. Same with my P7M8. Same with my 92SB. Same with my P-3AT. Same with P220."

Then one of the guys said that blaming the accident on the Glock is like blaming Ford for a Crown Vic catching fire after being hit by a molotov cocktail. I responded that a better analogy is like "blaming the Ford Pinto for bursting into flames when rear-ended. It wasn't the fault of the Pinto that it got rear-ended, but it is the fault of the Pinto that it burst into flames under those circumstances because the gas tank was improperly placed and designed. With proper design, the car doesn't get engulfed in flames.

This terrible accident wouldn't have happened with a better designed handgun. The problem is that there isn't sufficient safety factor for people acting improperly. With most other handguns, there is.

I'm getting more than a little tired of seeing Glock religionists blaming the victims because they aren't perfect in gun handling technique. None of us is perfect in that area. Much of the problem is the poor design of the gun itself. Why doesn't this happen with H&Ks or SIGs? Design!

In my area, of the non-suicide self inflicted handgun wounds I know of in the past five years all are from Glocks except for one (Glock-like) XD-9 shooting and one 1911 shooting in the leg that involved a significant amount of alcohol. Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away and blaming the victims for not being perfect doesn't make Glock a properly designed and safe enough gun.

If the design features of the Glock were in a $100 Saturday Night Special, everyone here would be ridiculing it and saying that the people who got hurt or killed with it deserved what they got for buying such a poorly designed gun."

Now, that is my

[shaftbass]

Marswolf, do you believe any of these accidents would have occured had the operator only had his finger on the trigger with the gun pointed downrange?

You mentioned something about this above but didn't elaborate.

This is coming from a non-Glock religionist, but someone who has owned a Glock and not shot himself with it.

[towerclimber37]

ok..my opinion..Every weapon has its own safety system or lack thereof.

While some are "more safe" than others, with more safety features and fail safes, it is up to the operator to learn that safety system and apply it EVERY time the weapon is used or practiced with.

Its a natural reaction for someone who hasn't had enough training, to put their finger on the trigger..In my opinion, that is the problem of the Glock.

It can be the safest firearm on the planet when no one touches it...doesn't matter one bit..all those safety features become null and void immediately when someone who's not trained in its particular safety features access that firearm.

I also think one of the reasons that Glocks get a lot of blame is that its a very popular pistol. Because of that, the incidence rate is higher.

comments?

[Marswolf]

Guys, the problem is that people who handle a gun a lot do not always handle it properly. You can't reasonably expect that to happen. You have to have a reasonable safety factor for temporary brain-deadness. Glock has a lot less margin for this unsafe handling than other quality handguns. That's why otherwise careful gun folks shoot themselves so much more often with a Glock.

Glock has a safety problem and pretending that it doesn't isn't my style and doesn't make the problem go away. I've owned Glocks. I don't now. I always do a very critical review of any handgun I own. Glock didn't measure up. There are a lot of better, if sometimes more expensive, choices.

And this doesn't even get into the stupidity of having the unsupported part of the chamber.

Objectively, it's a lousy design. It is adequate for a LE duty weapon. It should sell for $200.

[shaftbass]

Still, it comes down to not having your finger on the trigger unless you're pulling it on purpose.

Someone could argue that a 1911, even though it has a manual safety, is more dangerous because if someone has one in the chamber and the hammer back, and forgets to engage the safety, the trigger is more sensitive than a Glock.

[towerclimber37]

ach...it always comes down to the 1911. I think that many people pick on that pistol simply because it was designed by a genius..errr no, because its' had the longest service life of any automatic handgun in the world, err..no wait..because its been used by the most military forces in the world. *Sigh* Lets stick to the Glock and its safety features, please. Don't go picking on another pistol.

oh..and umm in order for someone to shoot themselves in the manner you described reef, that person would have to do 3 dumb things in a row. It only takes ONE dumb thing for a glock to go off

[towerclimber37]

remember what I said, Reef about mans' natural tendancy to put his finger on a trigger? that immediately makes all safety precautions a null value, when a trigger safety isnt combined with some other safety feature.

do a test! see if it isn't so...ensure your pistol is unloaded and allow 10 neophytes to hold it. cautiously observe them..they'll negate that trigger safety EVERY time.

[shaftbass]

ach...it always comes down to the 1911. I think that many people pick on that pistol simply because it was designed by a genius..errr no, because its' had the longest service life of any automatic handgun in the world, err..no wait..because its been used by the most military forces in the world. *Sigh* Lets stick to the Glock and its safety features, please. Don't go picking on another pistol.

Well, re-read my post. I said "Someone could argue." Not, "The 1911 is not safe." Meaning you can pick any particular thing about just about any object in existance and claim it's not safe.

Please don't make it look like I'm picking on any particular gun, or any gun at all. My stance is that modern guns are safe. Glocks, 1911s, XDs are all safe guns. It's the users who are not safe.

Hell, I just bought a 1911 yesterday

[Marswolf]

You might notice in my earlier post that I mentioned that one of the local self-shootings came from an XD, which is remarkably similar to a Glock because most people do not take their hand off of the grip safety when holstering the weapon. Training fixes that. There ain't no training fix for the Glock.

Modern guns don't go off without operator interaction. But some are clearly safer than others. They allow more room for improper operation of the weapon. There is no reason why you should have to release the striker before disassembling a modern handgun. This is the same design as in the Jennings. Junk. Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Maybe the Jennings was a great weapon. At least they didn't have an unsupported part of the chamber.

And know what? You can field strip a 1911 with a round in the chamber and without dry firing it without it going off. Not advisable, but you won't kill yourself that way or shoot up the furniture. You'll just feel stupid.

[shaftbass]

And know what? You can field strip a 1911 with a round in the chamber and without dry firing it without it going off. Not advisable, but you won't kill yourself that way or shoot up the furniture. You'll just feel stupid.

I never understood how people shot themselves while cleaning guns. The first thing you do is MAKE SURE IT'S NOT LOADED!

I think by "make sure it's not loaded" a lot of people say "well I don't remember it being loaded when I had it out last, so it must not be loaded now."

[towerclimber37]

Hell, I just bought a 1911 yesterday

yah...I'm a bit jealous!

[Marswolf]

I never understood how people shot themselves while cleaning guns. The first thing you do is MAKE SURE IT'S NOT LOADED!

Fortunately, you and I are not them.

[Guest db99wj]

Fortunately, you and I are not them.

Me either, that reminds me, need to clean the XD tonight.