http://youtu.be/CS4AKgIIg44
Over at gunssavelives.net, Dan Cannon has unearthed the SAFE-DRAW system for GLOCK brand GLOCK pistols. SAFE-DRAW gives the Austrian-born pistol an initial 17 pound trigger pull. (Take that, NYPD!) While millions of Americans keep and/or bear GLOCKs and GLOCK-like striker-fired pistols without mishap, mishaps do sometimes occur. Let’s face it: the average gun owner has lousy trigger discipline. They will almost certainly “register” (i.e. touch) their trigger in a defensive gun use. Don’t get me wrong: a gun is only as safe as its user. But shouldn’t we at least acknowledge the GLOCK’s inherent “challenge” to newbies?
An answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. If the holster covers the trigger the gun is relatively safe. Training accounts for the rest of the safety, and using mechanical devices to make up for bad training is still an accident waiting to happen.
Then why are there so many NDs with Glocks and Glock clones, even among law enforcement?
On another forum, everyone was saying “Oh there’s no problem carrying a Glock with a 5.5 pull and no safety, it has a “safety trigger.” Then someone came along and said “Oh I carry my 1911 with a 5.5 without the manual safety on, because it’s got a grip safety.” Everyone jumped all over him and well they should, but it’s the same argument, IMHO. BTW, the holster covering the trigger is not the point. I worry most about NDs when they are going into the holster and coming out of the holster and being out of the holster.
The other thing I hear is “it’s just a training issue.” I used to work in the systems safety business. No life and death safety issue is ever just a training issue. Safety is standardization, training, qualification, design and a whole lot more. Obviously, real pros can handle Glocks completely safely. But I imagine they are the minority of gun owners.
If you want to really be safe, get the safest equipment you can get and then handle it 100% safely.
Actually, there’s a world of difference between the mechanical operation of a 1911 and a Glock.
In a Conditon 1 (cocked and locked) 1911, the hammer is under full pressure by the hammer spring and is retained by the sear. Depending on which variety of 1911 you have, there may be a firing pin safety that will probably prevent discharge if the hammer drops without the trigger being pulled – but in other models there may not be. Depending, if the hammer is jarred from engagement with the sear, there’s a non-zero probability that the gun will go off. That’s where all the “drop safe” testing comes into play.
With a Glock or other trigger-cocking pistol, the striker is never under full spring pressure until just before the moment of firing. If a safety or some other internal mechanical interlock fails, the striker doesn’t move forward on its own. The only way you can get these guns to fire is to press the trigger to finish the cocking process. The only real exception to this would be to drop the gun on its muzzle on a hard surface, while simultaneously having the striker-engaged safety mechanism (which makes it drop safe) fail. A Glock or similar pistol, if you assume for the moment that all safety devices have failed, is actually safer to carry around, drop on your foot, or fling out your car window, than a 1911 with similarly-failed mechanical safeties.
I’ve carried 1911’s, Glocks, XDs and revolvers for years. I’ve had the manual safety on my 1911’s get switch off inadvertently by rubbing against clothing several times (not a big fan of ambidextrous safeties for that reason), and it admittedly makes me nervous. I even started carrying Para LDA-equipped 1911s partly because of that, even though the risk of an AD (not an ND) is still pretty low in a holstered 1911 with the safety off.
As far as preventing NDs because fingers touch triggers – it’s pretty much a comfort level and training thing. You just need to keep in mind how many things you need to deactivate or activate before the trigger actually works as a trigger.
As far as adding “safety devices” to a gun that require an Iron Man trigger pull to get the gun to fire – seriously? Making the gun so hard to fire that the chances are near 100% that you’ll pull the sights off the target is amazingly screwed up. To design a pistol for optimal ergonomics and then de-ergofy the on switch is just retarded.
The 1911 was designed with a grip safety only. It was the cavalry that required the thumb safety on the theory that holding a pistol that could be fired and an unruly horse was a ND waiting to happen. As a rule a 1911 with the thumb safety off is safer than a Glock or Glock like pistol. The XD series has grip safety just like the original 1911 and is a much safer pistol than a Glock. You can also get an XD Service with a thumb safety. I know this because I inadvertently bought one. What I don’t like about the XD is you have to depress the grip safety to rack the slide. You can chamber a round on a 1911 without depressing the grip safety.
What really makes the Glock-type pistol dangerous is that it encourages lousy trigger discipline. People get into the habit of registering their finger on the trigger. Same for DA/SA and DA revolvers. Anybody who learned to shoot on a 1911 or other SA only pistol learned not to register your figure on the trigger because it would go bang. One of the reasons that the police had so much trouble going from the 686 to the Glock was the long heavy double action pull on a revolver got them into the habit of having their finger on the trigger.
I agree with ya 100% Defens
The additional trigger safety mechanism in the video could be used by the non-thinking people who carry their Glock in a bellyband holster, most of which offer no protection around the trigger. Of course those non-thinking people will never be aware of the product as they are too busy being mentally programmed by their TV sets.
tidviina, I think you have the backwards. The cavalry wanted the grip safety in case a horseman dropped the gun in a fight. it was attached by a lanyard. Can you imaging a live tethered loose pistol in fight on horseback without a grip safety? Remember a live pistol will have no thumb safety engaged during a gun fight.
“If you want to really be safe, get the safest equipment you can get and then handle it 100% safely.”
Every safety issue boils down to management of risk. The decision to carry a pistol introduces risk of a negligent discharge- no matter weapon, if you don’t want that risk the only way to eliminate it is to not carry a weapon.
As you said it isn’t just a training issue, but training is part of the safety issue. The 17lb trigger is a hardware solution for a software problem. You read about the police officer in New York who shot a guy in a stairwell inadvertently, despite his 12 lb trigger? There’s a reason trigger discipline is taught and emphasized- because regardless of the type of mechanical safeties (and what you do with them)- the gun won’t fire until you place your finger on the trigger.
Let’s view this in military safety terms- Operational Risk Management. I’m accepting the risk of carrying a gun for a particular benefit- the ability to defend myself or others. That involves additional risks when I actually employ the weapon. To achieve the mission of self-defense, I may actually have to fire it vice just display it, which means I have a better chance of achieving the goal of self-defense (staying alive) if I hit the threat. Which is harder to do with a 17 lb trigger. Which also brings in another risk, the injury/damage caused by misses which again are more likely with a 17 lb trigger. Sure, knowing the background and what’s behind it mitigates the risk, but it doesn’t eliminate it.
You read about the police officer in New York who shot a guy in a stairwell inadvertently, despite his 12 lb trigger?
Yeah I don’t believe a word of it. The rookie got spooked and drilled the guy dead center, and they’re trying to call it an accident.
Every single Glock brand Glock ND I have ever read about falls into one of 3 categories.
1: careless holstering where fabric or something gets caught between the holster and the trigger. (accidental trigger pull)
2: finger on the trigger when it shouldn’t have been or tried to catch a falling gun and caught the trigger. (accidental trigger pull)
3: thought the gun was empty and pulled the trigger without checking the chamber. (deliberate trigger pull with unintended consequences)
All of them are caused by a lack or a disregard of basic training in the operation of striker-fired pistols. All of them are caused by deliberately or accidentally pulling the trigger.
The why of it has a lot to do with how many are in use and the access to quick information we have now. There could be a difference in reporting since the rise of the striker fired pistol a number of other contributing factors that could influence perception. I am not saying there is not a higher incidence or that strikers are for everyone and every role but I have not seen definitive numbers.
These firearms can not simply be written off as unsafe. Using a manual safety or heavy trigger pull to compensate for poor trigger discipline or careless re-holstering is a terrible approach. I have seen plenty of professionals not activate their safety during stress drills as well as not return to safety when holstering. Both of these are considerations for operating the firearm safely and require training. Regardless of the firearm some people will fail and with the best intentions there is no guarantee of them being operated 100% safely.
Glock – Austrian for “shit, I just shot myself”
I reject the premise of your comment, which is that Glock users are having a large amount of NDs. They are not. I will allow for the possibility that MORE NDs occur with pistols that have no manual safeties (which is a much bigger pool than just glocks and includes many HKs, sigs, FNs, S&Ws, Walthers, etc) but even then I think the numbers are probably irrelevant. If you can’t keep your grubby booger picker off of the trigger until you are ready to shoot then the problem is YOU, not the Glock.
And if you disagree then that’s fine. If you’re a safe person and the Glock trigger still bothers you then by all means carry what you’re comfortable with. If it’s because you’re not adult enough to keep your finger off the trigger and obey the four rules, then you are correct; you SHOULD NOT own or carry a Glock. Of course you also should keep away from all other guns, knives, power tools, ladders, mechanical pencils and other dangerous implements of destruction because you’re not adult enough to have nice things.
There have been any number of Glock ADs where the trigger was pulled by something other than a finger, like the guy who had a worn holster that caught the trigger and killed him. This CANNOT happen with a 1911 or an XD, since the trigger cannot be pulled unless someone is gripping the gun.
Do you not grip your gun when holstering?
There are more Glocks than any other type of pistol currently in use. Given there are so many Glocks and Glock type pistols in use there are bound to be more accidents with Glock pistols and their clones. Given Glock’s impeccable street reputation more new shooter are bound to buy Glock safe action pistols. 65% of police officers in the US are issued a Glock. That is like saying Ford trucks are dangerous because they have more accidents. Sure there are more accidents in the best selling pick up truck. There is nothing wrong with safety system on a Glock. The problem is even experienced shooters cannot keep their finger off the trigger.
Agree that a mechanical device is no substitute for bad training. It will not correct the bad training. People will get used to the device on their Glock and probably have more disastrous results when handling other firearms.
“But shouldn’t we at least acknowledge the GLOCK’s inherent “challenge” to newbies?”
Not if you don’t want to be crucified by the Glock-philes. I’m getting the popcorn for this one.
I would say yes; guns with a light, short trigger and no grip or frame mounted safety are inherently not “beginners” guns. That is why I like the FNS and the XDM; both accomplish an “improved” level of safety vs the Glock. Just like I wouldn’t recommend a beginner get a 1911 I also wouldn’t point them towards a Glock.
I used to say the 1911 was an experts pistol. I’m inclined to include striker fired pistols with the safety attached to the trigger in that same category.
Entire generations of Americans learned how to shoot a pistol on the 1911. To say it is an expert’s gun is wrong. There are aspects of it that fit this description but other attributes make it good for beginners. One of those attributes is the shooter learns to keep his finger off the trigger until he has a target to shoot at. I bet 1911 users who transition to Glocks are far less likely to have an ND because they already know to keep their finger off the trigger until you have a target.
I carried a manual safety Taurus 740 for a year before I started carrying a Glock. I can see the reasoning for wanting a feature like that until you have the confidence to carry something like a Glock and yeah, I wouldn’t suggest strapping a newbie with one either.
Only as safe as the person using it IMO.
Whatever. Keep your finger off the trigger. Problem solved. One of the reasons I like Glock is the lack of external safeties.
I second this. I bought a DA/SA pistol a while back and got rid of it because I felt safer handling Glocks/non functional safety guns.
And that is exactly what this device does; it turns an easily manageable safe-action pistol into another DA/SA (heavy pull, then light pull) can’t-hit-sh!+ pile of crap. Which smart folks have been moving away from for the last 20 years.
BTW, a grip safety isn’t a manual safety; it’s an early-20th-century version of a sear-locking-drop-safety for horse-mounted soldiers.
Funny that the Glock fanboys at once state that it’s all about learning trigger discipline, but then badmouth DA/SA pistols because they don’t want to learn to manage the initial trigger pull and keep it on target.
The nice thing about a Glock is that it’s a consistent (gritty) trigger pull. The bad thing about a Glock is it’s always a relatively light trigger pull that, under stress, might get pulled prematurely, or accidentally during reholstering or even stripping for cleaning (though obviously the user didn’t ensure the gun was unloaded).
I have both striker fired and DA/SA handguns, and as a rule I prefer the DA/SA. My Sig’s have no mechanical safety to hassle with, and the heavy DA on the initial pull ensures that you don’t accidentally pull it. All it takes is a little practice and experience to manage the initial DA pull, and being former military myself, this isn’t an issue.
Also, keep in mind that handguns were designed for close quarters and that most handgun battles take place at very close range, under stress, at a very fast pace. If you can’t hit something at 7 yards because the trigger pull is too heavy, you need to go put on your big girl panties and practice more.
“Funny that the Glock fanboys at once state that it’s all about learning trigger discipline, but then badmouth DA/SA pistols because they don’t want to learn to manage the initial trigger pull and keep it on target.”
Maybe because Glock fanboys are smart enough to know the difference between trigger discipline and trigger control.
Well played sir. lol. A fair comment considering the semantics I used.
Yes I understand the difference between “keep your boogerhook off the bang switch” and trigger control during shooting. But I think you understood my point, which is simply that people who badmouth DA/SA pistols either lack the ability to shoot properly, or the willingness to learn.
I don’t think striker fired handguns are inherently dangerous. They are, however, less forgiving of human error. They are easier to shoot, which makes them more appealing to novices that are more prone to the human errors that result in a ND.
I just personally have an issue with the “I can’t shoot a DA/SA. The trigger’s too heavy.” crowd. It doesn’t take much practice to learn.
It doesn’t take much effort to learn, but it take an infinite amount of effort to master, which is almost never accomplished. The heavy trigger pull makes DA autos so “safe” that it’s nearly impossible to actually shoot well with them, at high speed (almost anyone can shoot a good DA group slow-fire, or by pre-cocking the hammer first for SA use). Yeah, I knew a few guys that got really good with them, and I have a rack of trophies showing where my mediocre Glock shooting stomped their really good DA shooting. After they transitioned to Glocks or another striker-fired design, they regularly lamented the time they wasted battling with the DA/SA transition. It’s a wasted use of brain cells that could be used for better things, like improving your strategic or tactical situation.
You will not find ANY combat-style shooting discipline/game/match that shows DA auto shooters regularly winning against Glock or other striker-fired pistol shooters of the same (or even lesser) skill levels. DA autos rule the political world of administrators, striker-fired or SA pistols rule the world of shooting and hitting your target.
And I should also mention, I placed at the top of my FLETC Pistol Transition class using a DA SIG 228, and used/taught the DA Beretta M9 for many years (and even competed with it a bit, with a small amount of success). So your “Glock guys just don’t know how to shoot DA autos” theory is also a load. A pro knows enough to not beat his head against a wall when presented with a better mechanical way to accomplish an important task.
All guns are “Unsafe” if you don’t following the firearms safety rules. The main safety is between your ears: Think SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY!!!!!
No more than other striker fired without an external safty. The S&W Shield With out external safty or Welther just to name a couple more if your training or just a total disregard to follow the safe gun handling rules they are just as dangerous as any other gun. You can put all the safety’s on guns you want and some nucke head is going to claim the gun acted on its own. I’ve never seen a holstered gun or a gun sitting on a table decide to fire on its own. Every time they claim it just went off it just happened to be in someone’s hands.
Word. The market is awash with striker-fired pistols that do not have safeties. Or with safeties that are categorically left in the “off” position. I’ve carried Glocks on-duty and off for 15 years without a single negligent discharge. I started with a GLOCK 35 as a newbie and never had any issues. However, other newbies and cops have shot themselves in the leg or prior to cleaning. That is directly attributable to negligence and a lack or respect for firearms safety. I’ve cut myself with knives and never blamed the knife for being to sharp – or too dull.
However, one must be cognizant of the fact that undergarments, strings, tips of holsters, etc. can find their way into a trigger guard and potentially fire virtually striker fired gun without a safety (or with the safety de-activated). Go fast out of the holster, keep finger off trigger unless necessary, and slow to return to the fully-holstered position and you’ll be fine. With that being said, revolvers and DA / SA pistols are probably better suited to new shooters.
Dat Glock 18 though…
Always inspires confidence when something firearm related is demonstrated on an airsoft gun.
Train for every firearm you own. If they’re a newbie, even better. No training scars.
Trigger discipline issues? Maybe this is a reference to triggers hanging up on clothing while holstering?
Yep! I was a newbie when I bought my Glock two years ago. I shoot a lot. I clean it a lot. I dry practice a lot. I have carried it every day for two years.
I disagree with RF when he says “Let’s face it: the average gun owner has lousy trigger discipline.” I accept the average person has poor trigger discipline but the below average gun owner might.
The key is not trying to be safe over a life time, the key is to be safe each time you handle the gun then repeat the process every time.
I don’t know about “unsafe”, but the Glock offers less margin for error than a revolver or DA/SA auto. I don’t know how anyone could argue with this. If you feel comfortable carrying one – and clearly plenty do – good for you. I’d rather have a CZ or something.
Tex Grebner shot himself in the leg with a 1911… But, of course, it must’ve been chambered in something other than the venerable .45acp due to his leg not being blown apart from all the “hydrostatic shock.”
But, I digress, it’s not the gun, it’s the person. People make mistakes.
Grebner shot himself with a Kimber…funny thing I just watched a video last night he made that detailed that ND.
The opposite is true. I start new shooters with a Glock 17. Teaching trigger discipline is far easier when there is no grip or manual safety, only the shooter’s finger. It is also a good pistol to teach proper draw and re-holstering techniques, before moving on to more “complicated” pistols like the 1911.
No
As J alluded to, no gun is safe. It’s a matter of how dangerous they are. I’ve had Glocks for years. Never have they attempted to injure me or any other. To my knowledge, there have been a few unfortunate incidents where those spring loaded adjusters for the waist or hood ropes have gotten ahold of triggers and educated someone. Another where a soft leather iwb holster did the same. Not a terrible record for a weapon around since the 80’s. Caracal should be so lucky/well designed! As with cars, the problems are usually “the nut that holds the wheel.”
The inherent challenge of a Glock (or other striker fired pistol) is no different than that of a single-action or even SA/DA pistol, once the safety is off. In fact, one might argue that – if you’re in the habit of fingering the trigger before you’re ready to shoot – that a Glock is “safer” than something like a 1911 or a cocked and locked Beretta, with the safety off.
At any rate, there comes a point in the operation of ANY mechanical device that when you push the “On” button, the device actually turns on. How many obstacles do you want to put in the way from the decision to fire and the bullet actually moving down the bore?
17 POUND trigger? Wow…. that’s right up there with the old Nagant m1895 revolver. o,,o
Didn’t Smith & Wesson already invent this? i think it was called the SW9VE?
I’ve never fired one of those S&Ws, so I can’t say. But I have had a Nagant Revolver. The triggers are fairly terrible on them. Very ‘gritty’ and very stiff. The former I was able to clean up by polishing most of the surfaces in the mechanism. But that heavy of a trigger…. well if nothing else I wouldn’t want it in a carry gun. That’s for sure.
The trigger probably creaks like an old door when you pull it.
Personally i think starting off with guns that had no safety helped me be that much more mindful of trigger discipline.
The Glock was designed with the idea that the pistol will not be drawn from its holster until and unless the shooter has determined that it is time to introduce lethal force. It was not designed with the typical American attitude, fostered by the media, that the gun is some kind of magic talisman to be brandished at a threat, as if you were holding a cross in front of a vampire. The other thing that the Glock wasn’t designed for was holding someone at gunpoint while cuffing them, or attempting to physically restrain them.
As I was informed, a long time ago, by a guy who claimed to have participated in the Glock’s design process back in the beginning, when Gaston Glock was consulting with a bunch of European IPSC shooters, the idea that the pistol might be used like that was the furthest thing from their mind. In the environment that the design process took place, the mentality was that if a pistol was drawn, lethal force was going to immediately deployed. The idea that the pistol would be used as a threat/intimidation display item never occurred to them, which was why it was designed the way it was. The fundamental philosophy is that the user, expected to be a conscript Austrian soldier or Euro-style armed police officer, would have the weapon on their person, loaded, and ready to fire. Once the carrier made the determination that lethal force needed to be deployed, then they wanted the absolute minimum of steps between them drawing the pistol and firing it to save their lives. This concept of use influences everything about the Glock’s manual of arms. Think of it as though it were a fire extinguisher, and the holster serves as the safety pin. Withdraw the weapon from the holster, and it is supposed to be ready to use.
Failure to understand this concept is probably the fundamental cause for most Glock issues relating to negligent discharges. Personally, I would never have chosen this particular weapon for use under American policing policies and techniques, because we use our pistols as threat displays more than the Euros do. In Europe, drawing a pistol in many jurisdictions is tantamount to firing it, and a police officer can come under investigation for a draw alone, and get in as much trouble as if he actually fired his weapon. The idea is, the officer is not to introduce lethal force into a situation until he absolutely has to, and once he does, he is to use it. An Austrian officer who worked investigations in Vienna actually told me that he’d be more likely to get in trouble for drawing his weapon and not firing it than he would for firing it, the idea being that if he didn’t really need to use lethal force to control a situation, he shouldn’t have drawn the gun in the first place. Basically, from what he said, if you put a typical Austrian police officer into a situation where he felt justified in drawing a weapon, you were going to get shot, period. Listening to him compare notes with his (literal) American cousin who was a suburban cop in Illinois was very, very interesting.
US-style policing generally trains the officers to draw and have their weapons at the ready when they think they may need them. This may make more sense, but the Glock was not designed with this particular sort of usage in mind. The entire idea of the Glock is that it is the lowest common denominator pistol, intended to be issued to conscripts who are not well-trained in its use, and allow them the best opportunity to defend themselves in extremis. Given that design philosophy, I’m not sure that the weapon is suited to American-style police work.
Excellent. Another illustration of what is wrong in policing in the US
pistol was drawn, lethal force was going to immediately deployed. I agree. This is correct.
You must have problem with the small percentage of citizen DGUs that end in the weapon being fired. We are brandishing weapons without the immediate intention of firing it.
If you articulate anything that can be interpreted as “brandishing” a weapon during your interrogation or defense in most American jurisdictions, you’ve just about guaranteed that you’re going to get screwed over by the courts.
Every lawyer and expert on this issue that I have read or consulted with over the years has made this point abundantly clear–You do not introduce a weapon into a dynamic encounter until you have no other choice, and once you have done so, you utilize it. Anything else is asking for a prosecutor or jury to second-guess what you did, because they will see your “brandishing” a weapon as something showing your lack of certainty as to whether or not you were justified in shooting. Additionally, any “accidents” that take place in conjunction with your “brandishing” display now become matters for potential civil suit because of your negligence in introducing deadly force into a situation where you have clearly articulated that you were unsure about the necessity thereof.
This isn’t something you should take as gospel, from me. Law may well be different in your jurisdiction, and I would highly recommend that you consult with an attorney who is familiar with both the law, and with how the local prosecutors administer it. I would be amazed, however, if those experts tell you that what you’re suggesting is a good idea, or even legal.
Remember–The actual shooting portion of defensive gun use is only the beginning. You also have to survive your encounter with the authorities and the rest of society, which is where you really need to focus a good deal of thought. In some jurisdictions, the mere statement by you in the course of a post-shooting investigation that you’d “brandished” your firearm in an attempt to “scare off” the idiot you had to shoot will be taken against you, and seen as justification for what that person did before you shot him–Which does a lot to turn “justified defensive gun use” into “unjustified immature behavior requiring prosecution for the safety of the public”.
What happens most often when a armed citizen produces a gun when attacked is that the attacker runs off Statistically most DGUs end without shots being fired for this reason. Most bad guys are interest in your money and not getting shot. You draw you gun in self defense to stop a threat. The threat usually ends when bad guy sees the gun.
By most jurisdictions definition, that does not constitute “brandishing”.
Brandishing is defined as the following under the Revised Code of Washington State:
RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm—Unlawful carrying or handling—Penalty—Exceptions.
“(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
If you draw a weapon and that ends the threat you perceived, you have met the requirements of the exception to this law:
“(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.”
So long as you can effectively and reasonably articulate what you did as falling under the exemption codified at sub-paragraph (c), you’re within the law. That becomes problematic when you start telling the investigators and prosecutors things like “I drew my gun and showed him I was armed…”. If the prosecutor can even start to put together a case showing that you were attempting to use your weapon to intimidate, from either what you say or what another witness says, you’re in for a hard time. It’s only a misdemeanor charge by itself, but when it is taken in conjunction with other charges relating to the incident, it gets ugly quick. You have to be very careful how you articulate what you did and how you understood what you were doing at the time.
“I drew my gun to scare him off…” is not a good thing to be telling the police or prosecutors. On the other hand, the same event described as “I drew my gun to shoot him because I believed he was an imminent threat, and was about to fire when he saw the gun and ran off; not having a reason or justification to shoot him, I holstered my weapon and called 911”. Which leads to two points in these situations–One, get your story on record with the police first, and understand that you might still be justified in shooting the subject as he flees. Conditions that would make that both moral and legal are between you, your religious adviser and your lawyer. If you have good reason to believe that the subject of this incident is running towards his vehicle to obtain a weapon, you have no obligation to allow him to do so. Probably your best course of action is to visibly attempt to stop him from arming himself by issuing appropriate commands, and then take what action you deem to be necessary and legal.
Again, talk to your local attorneys and prosecutors. I’m simply repeating and rephrasing my understanding of the law in my state (Washington), and I am emphatically not a lawyer. I can say, however, that I have been clearly instructed by my advisers in these matters that any potential creation of a perception of “brandishment” is going to make my attorney’s job defending me a lot harder, and likely, a hell of a lot more expensive. You set the scene for your later defense with how you discuss this with the police and prosecutors, and allowing even the idea of you having brandished a weapon to be raised makes it that much harder. My attorney used an example from one of his earlier cases where the police officer taking the statement from his client rephrased what the client wrote, changing his earlier clear articulation of having drawn his weapon with the intent of defending himself to something like “…brandished my pistol to frighten off X…”. That “minor little change” in phrasing nearly resulted in a murder charge from the prosecutor, because it allowed him to articulate a theory of the incident that made the client appear to be the irrational instigator.
Which is precisely why you want to be with a lawyer when you’re making statements to the police and/or prosecutors. A few hundred dollars up front can save your ass from later bills relating to trial in the hundreds of thousands. Find someone reputable, get their card, maybe put them on retainer, and as soon as you’re involved in a situation, politely and professionally inform the police that your attorney has instructed you to cooperate as much as possible, but not to make any statements until he is present. Hell, tell them that anyway, and then find a lawyer you can trust, and it isn’t Uncle Bob, who mostly does estate planning. You want a reputable criminal defense lawyer who is familiar with these things, and Uncle Bob ain’t it.
Y’know… I don’t know that it is really a problem with the police or police training. It’s a culture issue, and I don’t know how the hell you address it.
The discussion between the Austrian officer and some of the American ones on the range produced a bunch of very interesting observations. In Austria, the criminal element “knew” that if the officer had his hand on the pistol butt before drawing it that “shit just got serious”, and responded accordingly. They were aware that if the officer drew the gun, people were about to get shot, 99% of the time.
Thing that the American officers made clear was that the average idiot criminal that they dealt with was highly unlikely to respond to such a cue, and generally did not react until and unless they were looking down the barrel of a gun. Something else that came up was that an old-timer who’d come from outside Illinois said that they’d tried that same sort of thing back in the day, when he was first a police officer, and they’d found it hadn’t worked with the people they were dealing with–Which was why that whole “threaten by placing hand on gun butt” technique was abandoned.
The big point you have to realize is that a weapon is as much a cultural artifact as it is anything else, and there is a tremendous interactive impact between weapon design, culture, and how that weapon will be used. You have to know and understand the cultural milieu that weapon was designed under, and how it was envisioned to be used by the designer. A Glock is purely a utilitarian killing utensil, intended to be used like a household appliance. On the other hand, you have something like a Texas Ranger “BBQ Gun”, which is intended to be just as much a display piece signalling a bunch of stuff to people that see it, as well as being a killing implement. A Texas Ranger drawing his customized Colt M1911 may well be intending to simply signal “Hey, asshole… I’m serious, here…”, and that would be totally appropriate in many circumstances, ones where the Austrian “Draw and shoot until target is down and no longer a threat…” wouldn’t be. It’s all about the culture. An Austrian criminal has apparently been conditioned to realize that if he makes the police draw, he’ll be shot. An American one, given the cultural programming that he likely has, doesn’t think the cops are “serious” until the muzzle of a gun is pointed at him. You’re dealing with two different environments, at this point, and you have to consider the rest of the factors going into the dynamics, as well. It isn’t unlikely that you might hear a defense lawyer or civil suit plaintiff here in the US say something like “Well, Tray-tray didn’t think the cop was serious, and then when the pig drew his gun, he just started blasting poor Tray-tray…”.
Per one of the American officers that was there that day at the range with us, that’s precisely what happened to him during a civil suit he’d faced over a line-of-duty shooting. The lawyer who sued him actually claimed that he’d “skipped a vital step in threat escalation by shooting as soon as he drew his weapon”. Given that the idiot he shot was continuing to advance on him from a distance of 10 feet with the crowbar he’d been using to break into a store’s back door, I kinda thought that was ridiculous. But, it is apparently an expectation, and one you’ll see in court.
The issue, in short, isn’t just with the police. A lot of it comes from the people the police have to deal with, and I honestly think that what the rest of us consider “police brutality and unjustified use of force” is completely balanced out by the general maliciousness of the people the cops have to deal with routinely. The police get conditioned to dealing with those jackasses, and then when they encounter a relatively well-behaved citizen, the same thing that they had to resort to with the jackasses becomes a cause celebre when it hits the news. After spending some time with a bunch of Chicago cops, and finding out what they had to deal with every day, I’m pretty much of the opinion that they ought to be driving armored cars and utilizing belt-feds for daily work. The Austrian officer did a drive-along with a couple of them, and he was aghast at what they had to deal with. I ran into him again with the guy he was visiting, who worked as a detective out in one of the suburbs, and the Austrian just shook his head and said something along the line of “…if that went on in Austria, we’d be re-opening the camps tomorrow…”. I don’t think he was generally impressed with the human detritus he encountered in the neighborhoods he visited with the Chicago guys, one of which was the then-infamous Cabrini Green. After that ride-along, he was really impressed with the amount of restraint (!?!) the Chicago cops he was with displayed. He was used to getting a lot more respect from the criminal elements, in Austria.
Interesting observations, Kirk. I was just wondering though if the cops are reacting to the criminals or the criminals are reacting to the cops. If the thugs knew that an officer drawing his weapon meant he was going to fire, the behavior of our criminal element might be no different than those in Austria.
A possible explanation for the different cultures is that in Europe the police took up semi-autos long before American police. Our police had that 11 pound Smith & Wesson DA trigger to keep accidental shootings to a minimum, even with poor trigger discipline. Instead of changing tactics, we’ve had situations like the NYPD going to Glock and insisting they provide them with 12 pound triggers.
Just found this thread, hopefully some readers are still engaged here.
Kirk, your post here is among the best I’ve seen on this divisive topic. May I quote you with appropriate credit?
I’m a former cop, paramedic, medical investigator, longtime shooter, RSO and defensive pistol instructor in everything the NRA offers, criminal defense homicide investigator, violence effects and force policy expert, and consultant on defensive use of force.
After 15 years with S&W DA/SAs, followed by 18 years of reluctantly acquired conversion and expertise with Glocks, I’m going back to a 6906 with a custom spur hammer. I consider the Glock to be comparable to a cocked 1911 without a grip safety, and I like 1911s.
My practice with a decocker/safety on DA/SA handguns is to apply it just prior to holstering, and disengage it once fully and properly holstered. And, as a discreetly armed civilian, to take off my ego when I put on a gun, and keep my gun out of sight until absolutely needed. That may be in my hand, concealed; in Position Sul; or aimed or “brandished” as instinct and the myriad of situational factors determine. I don’t think the precise tactics of one encounter apply well to any other.
Thanks for your clear thinking and good writing.
great info. would not have thought about it like this.
Damn, well said.
That was a pretty damned informative post.
Thanks for the perspective! If there was a “like” button for posts, I’d be clicking it.
I guess that explains why it’s so good for civilian concealed carry.
Makes perfect sense, and I agree with you– it’s not the right tool for every situation.
I own some, and carry them occasionally, but I have the trigger management under control. I’d never recommend one to a newbie!
You’re correct that Gaston considered an external safety unnecessary. However, I don’t agree with you on the different policies between countries of when to draw your service weapon. Regardless, this is not the root of the problem. If a cop draws a non-glock-like service weapon, he’ll most likely disengage the safety during the draw. In this case, the type of weapon is irrelevant.
The root of the problem is “safe action” ND’s resulting from plain stupidity or lapse of vigilance; disassembling the gun for cleaning, complacency when re-holstering or foreign object in the trigger guard when re-holstering, trying to catch a dropped gun, worn out or poorly fitted holster, etc. And, this happens not only to “newbies”, but to seasoned and experienced people as well.
Many argue that an external safety is a liability when the sh*t hits the fan. But, having no external safety is equally a liability in the course of ones everyday life. I don’t mean to infer that guns with external safeties are inherently more safe. Vigilance of all the safety rules is required no matter what firearm you’re handling. But, no matter how vigilant one might be accidents do happen.
Take for example the foreign object in the trigger guard. If one has a gun with an external safety engaged, then there is less risk that the foreign object will cause a ND.
I’m always amazed how often I see “instructional’ videos of “instructors” re-holstering their glock-brand-glocks blindly, and it’s especially appalling when someone is carrying appendix. If you’re going to re-holster your weapon, then the BG is no longer a threat, and you should therefore visibly ensure you’re safely re-holstering your weapon. Sure… you may not look as cool, but you’ll have fewer unwanted body piercings.
Ah, Miguel… You miss the point. The design philosophy was that they meant to eliminate every possible chance that the guy with the pistol might screw up, and not eliminate the threat to himself because he forgot one simple step in the process, that of taking the weapon off of safe. The design bias was not towards safety in terms of reducing the potential for negligent discharge, but towards safety in terms of eliminating the threat that drove the shooter to drawing the weapon in the first place.
And, along those lines, I agree with the philosophy behind it under certain specific situations, one of which happens to be civil self-defense. I do not believe in the idea of brandishing a gun as a threat, because that carries too many other inherent risks. Before you draw, you should be certain that what you are about to do is justifiable, and necessary. Introduce a firearm before that point, and the potential for subsequent tragedy is suddenly introduced. Case in point–That situation where the homeowner “unintentionally” shot the young women who came to his front door in Detroit not that long ago. Had he chosen not to introduce lethal force into that situation until it was absolutely necessary, he probably wouldn’t be in jail today.
One thing that all too many trainers neglect to teach is that defensive firearms use has a lot more to it than just weapons handling and marksmanship. Personally, I find that the Glock design philosophy goes right along with what I’ve found to be effective in training, and in keeping with my knowledge of the law in my home state. Integrate all of that, and you have the ability to articulate a clear narrative that will help keep your ass out of jail, should you ever have to use the weapon in self-defense. As a package, I think that the Glock system has a lot to offer anyone contemplating the need for civil self-defense. It’s also ideal for battlefield use by the majority of soldiers, given the likely situations they’ll encounter. I’m not, however, persuaded that the Glock is an ideal pistol for American-style police use. However, it would seem that a bunch of folks happen to disagree with me, which is cool because that means that the widespread deployment of the Glock makes for a very dynamic aftermarket-support situation for me.
That all makes sense, and that’s why I think the Glock is such a good choice for places like Afghanistan where the threat is Sudden Jihad Syndrome in the HQ, or as a backup for heavy weapons crew, driverse etc. – roles where it will reside in a properly designed holster, and if drawn will likely be immediate fired.
That’s the precise environment that the Glock was designed for, although I think Gaston et al were thinking more along the lines of Soviet Spetsnatz infiltrators than people on your side developing Sudden Jihad Syndrome…
A 17 pound trigger pull?
If that’s the only thing keeping you from a negligent discharge, it’s probably time to face the fact that you’re one of those people who should never, ever handle a gun.
Get rid of any firearms you may already own and take solace in the knowledge that there are plenty of people in the world who actually can do this gun thing safely, and that most of them are willing to protect you if you need it.
The problem with that is many of the neg. discharges are done by inexperienced LEO. I believe that’s kinda what this system was designed for. Do you take away thier sidearm? While I want to say yes to a point, it all goes back to training and we’ve all heard multiple reports of departments that have minimal training of, ok shoot your sidearm once a year and you’re done.
I am not a fan of glocks, I prefer having a secondary safety. Not so much for myself, but for others that may handle it. My brother has a G19 and I like it just fine in every aspect of the gun itself, but not the safety system, now the M&P Shield he has I like because it has an external safety as well. This is why I prefer my Beretta 92fs, if I choose to carry safety off I still have a heavy DA trigger pull to over come first shot, but I also have a manual safety if I so choose to use it. I think the trigger style safety was a solution to a problem not many people had, but granted before then most were carrying DA revolvers, or 1911 style handguns. And before I hear it a manual safety is fine as long as you train with it.
The S&W Shield comes with or without external safty
I understand that but his has one and I prefer it. My CCP is a LC9 and I like having a safety on it even though it is a DA. I have just seen too many people that are completely ignorant with guns pick one up, and the first place thier pointer goes is to the trigger. With a glock, especially one with a trigger job this becomes a bad thing in a hurry.
And if (or when) I buy a Shield, it definitely will not a safety. To each their own.
Yes, very much so. Now, everyone that has one get a hold of me. I’ll take them off your hands, and save your life.
Nice try
I wish there were some way to determine the circumstances in which these Glock accidents occur. My guess, and it is a guess, is that a lot of them happen in two specific circumstances: 1. Shooter thinks the pistol is empty–but it’s not. Often when cleaning, often in conjunction with LEO training in which there are multiple magazine changes, timed fire sequences, etc. and the shooter loses track of important things. 2. Shooter is drawing or reholstering the pistol with finger on trigger. What I’m saying here is, I question whether a really high percentage of NDs result from Itchy Finger Syndrome, which is to say, the lack of an external safety lever/switch is probably not the main factor or even a truly significant factor.
IMO, Springfield’s Croatian pistols cover most of the above bases, without a safety lever/switch. The grip safety, again IMO, probably covers a lot of the draw/reholster situations. The lack of need, at least on the XDM, to pull the trigger before removing the slide for cleaning would handle a lot of those cleaning/prep accidents.
I carried a Glock for many years and had no NDs–partly due to my own caution, partly to range officer vigilance and adherence to safety protocols. I don’t think the Glock design is inherently dangerous. However, it may be more vulnerable to brain farts.
Of course Glocks are dangerous, that’s the point of a gun or any other weapon.
Are they more dangerous than any other gun? No.
My first pistol was a Glock 22. I ended up selling it and getting a Ruger SR9c when my daughter was born, realizing that I would soon have a toddler climbing all over me. Are Glocks inherently dangerous? No, but sometimes it is nice to have a manual safety.
A Glock is perfectly safe if the user keeps his finger off the trigger. Unfortunately, the user has to pull the trigger to clean his Glock, which is not safe at all.
I’m pretty fed up with hearing this complaint about GLOCK pistols, especially on a site where numerous people talk about dry firing to practice. If having to dry fire to clean is dangerous, how is it safe to dry fire practice?
“If having to dry fire to clean is dangerous, how is it safe to dry fire practice?”
Easy! Most people don’t practice.
Since I can’t keep up with which pistols can be dry-fired without potential damage and which can’t, I don’t dry-fire without a snap cap or some such. That makes it a bit more safe I guess.
I have never understood it either. If you can’t determine if a firearm is loaded or not it isn’t the gun that is lacking. I dry fired all types of firearms for many years before owning one that required it for break down. There was a time when dry fire drills accounted for 80% of my training when I was shooting live fire daily. Somehow I survived decades of the increased danger associated with dry firing.
Yep. I would consider that I design flaw. I once started cleaning my Glock, then hastily put it back in my safe to attend to a screaming toddler. The scream you hear after a loud thump. He’d climbed out of his crib and fell onto the carpet. Nothing serious, but it definitely got my heart going. After getting him settled in his crib, I went back into the garage and into my “man cave” to resume cleaning some 20-30 minutes later. The mag was out and I momentarily thought my Glock was clear. Then I remembered that my screaming son had interrupted the clearance process, and racked the live round out of the chamber prior to clearing.
If I worked for Glock, I’d rework the pistol to eliminate the need to fire the gun prior to field stripping. I’d subsequently reinforce that weak little latch (forgetting the exact name right now) that prevents the upper from sliding forward off of the lower receiver. And I’d switch to stainless 416R barrels with button rifling. And I’d reinforce the lower receiver. And improve the trigger pull. And put a stainless steel guide rod and dual recoil spring in as standard equipment. And have metal sights. Plus and aluminum lower receiver option, with optional cerakote. And make the slide from stainless steel. And I’d make a 9mm single stack just a bit bigger, and more reliable, than the G42.
The Gen4s do have dual recoil springs.
Yes. Those recoil springs were initially recalled. Oops, that’s not proper Glockspeak. They were subject to a Recoil Spring Exchange Program. Which is like a recall but isn’t a recall, like what Remington did with its triggers that weren’t recalled, just replaced. Get it? Got it. Good!
Glock Gen 4s have a dual coil springs placed upon a wimpy plastic guide rod.
I find it extremely difficult to pull the trigger on my Glock without pushing the safety button somewhere in the travel of the trigger.
To me, this makes it a drop-safe feature, not a safety. In contrast, you can put sufficient pressure on a 1911 trigger to discharge it without pushing in the grip safety. That’s a safety – it stops unintentional trigger pull. I have a hard time imagining the situation where the Glock trigger “safety” stops anything from pulling the trigger.
The guy who designed the “safety” on the Glock is probably the same guy who routed the “redundant” hydraulic lines on the DC-10 through the same point on the tail. That way when a compressor throws a blade it takes out both lines.
Why do I not see the same number of arguments here about the dangers of a DA revolver’s lack of an external safety? A S&W snub may have a heavier trigger pull, but that’s not really a safety, just an inconvenience.
Self-discipline is the safety on either.
The trigger pulls required on DA revolvers are both heavier *and* longer. Any gun can be fired unintentionally when handled without care, Glocks just make it easier than most.
If they don’t fire until you pull the trigger they’re safe.
I hate how every striker fired gun has to have a 5 or 6 pound trigger as a “safety” feature and how DA/SA guns have to have a 10 pound trigger as a “safety” feature.
If your finger is inside the trigger guard when you don’t want to fire YOU are the unsafe link.
I cry when I think about all the crappy triggers out there because a handful of morons can’t seem to understand how a gun works.
Yes
A holster should not be the sole safety, It limits the available scenarios to get the firearm into action.
One example – of many: even if your Glock is in your bed side drawer you need both hands to yank the gun out of the required holster to respond to to a threat.
Or don’t you keep your glock in a holster off body?
Sitting on a table top or drawer, no I don’t have it holstered. There are no children or guests in my house. No hurricane breezes ready to launch the pistol into the air.
But if you wanted to cover the trigger guard a Vanguard, MIC Aegis or any number of inexpensive trigger covers will to.
Tie it off and one hand draw works fine.
“But shouldn’t we at least acknowledge the GLOCK’s inherent “challenge” to newbies?”
Who, pray tell, is “we”?
I’ve been warning newbies away from Glocks for at least 20 years.
Until you can handle the trigger discipline, you ought to have something else. Stunning that this is even debatable.
Until you can handle the trigger discipline you shouldn’t handle a loaded firearm of any sort.
I thought this was settled already. The company doesn’t recommend the 3.5lb connector for carry. Instead, the 5.5lb is factory standard… case closed.
Your can’t have your cake and eat it too. Each person has to make their own decision on what works for them.
But remember this; if you try to fix this with hardware rather than training, you end up with the NYPD 12+lb trigger pull. It may lead to fewer officers having NDs, but how many bystanders have been hit when multiple officers open fire (rightly so) on armed criminals?
As a private citizen, you will not get the same quiet out of court settlement (paid for by the city) to the wounded bystanders.
Choose wisely.
Meh. Carry a Glock or don’t. But a 17lb. trigger pull? Yeah that would make it a “safe action”LOL
What challenge? Train trigger discipline. Train until you can’t get it wrong, even when you’re cold, wet, hungry, tired, and someone is shooting at you in the dark. Don’t buy stupid widgets to attempt to compensate for a lack of training and a screwed up mindset.
The only argument I’d make against any striker fired pistol with only a trigger safety is that it wouldn’t be my carry weapon if I had a toddler in the house. Everytime you hear about someone being accidentally shot by their child it’s with a striker fired pistol without a thumb safety and usually a Glock.
My worry about Glocks, or any pistol with a similar design, isn’t the need to keep your finger off the trigger or the need to pull the trigger before disassembly. Both of those are training, not design, issues. I worry about some foreign object entering the trigger guard and forcing the trigger back. This isn’t a problem with pistols, such as the 1911, that have manually operated safeties. Even a heavy trigger pull isn’t enough. Back when my local police department carried S&W model 10s, an officer shot himself when he tripped during a foot pursuit.
Just don’t install any competition trigger kits in your carry piece. There are so many youtube videos showing guys who can’t wait to lighten the trigger pull and (I presume) use that gun for CCW. A ZEV trigger kit can bring down your Glock’s trigger pull to about 2 lb for about $10 worth of parts. Is that ok for range-only or competition? Sure, although probably not if a complete novice is handling the gun. It’s best to leave the stock trigger in a carry gun. Get better sights if you want to, but that’s about it.
i don’t own a glock, but i thought they were already called “glock safe action pistol” isnt it somewhere on their logo?
no
No Glocks are not unsafe, not any more unsafe than any other weapon. All weapons are unsafe in the wrong hands. I believe one or more gun manufacturers state in their owners manuals that GUNS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. They are meant to kill people and destroy things. Can’t believe no one brought up the revolver (remember those). Double action revolvers dont have a safety. They worked very well for many years until the age of the Wunder Nine. I dont remember anyone having this conundrum over the DA revolver. Maybe they did when it first came on the market. Maybe the SA revolver folks decried the DA as UNSAFE. Dunno. Way before my time.
Handguns with light triggers that lack safeties punish negligence at a higher rate than other handguns, I’d wager. Heavy triggers and safeties are more forgiving of carelessness.
The easier it is to pull a trigger the more necessary additional safety measures are. 1911s would be extremely dangerous without safeties while DA revolvers are pretty safe without them. Glock and most other striker fired pistols have triggers that are right in the middle and the need for a safety is a little ambiguous. Personally I prefer a little extra safety as I live in a low crime area and am probably much more likely to have a brain fart with my booger hook (even smart people do stupid things from time to time) than I am to draw my weapon in anger.
OMG!!! This is literally my nightmares embodied! You know, the one where no matter how hard you try, you just can’t pull the trigger hard enough to fire off a round when you need to?
My local FFL (and boss) doesn’t like to sell self defense guns that don’t have manual safeties. He’ll sell Glocks and Sigs for serious shooters or as range toys, and for people new to guns or for women he’ll sell S&W Bodyguard 380’s, but not the Ruger LCP because there’s no safety. He actually got pissed when he bought an LC9s Pro because he didn’t know it was safetyless. I guess he’d rather not ever hear a story that a gun he sold accidentally got it’s user killed, because lately there’s been a lot of stories like that.
Answer of the day: no, Glocks are not unsafe. Idiots are unsafe. The most important safety exists between your ears. So those who say Glocks are unsafe are either ignorant or intentionally trolling.
I think the trigger safety thing on a glock is an nd/ad waiting to happen. I would not get a glock period, and I certainly would not carry one.
Glock carrier here. I agree with you that the flange on the trigger is useless. But I won’t go so far as to say it causes NDs.
The fact that people complain about glocks being unsafe since they don’t have a thousand safeties tells me someone needs training.
I won’t read all 100+ replies, so my comment is likely redundant.
As a “newbie,” my very first pistol was a G19. There was a blog article posted here before that postulated the safest gun is one that is loaded. One might extend that same idea to a gun without a safety. Many gun “accidents” (negligence) end with the perpetrator saying, “I thought it was unloaded.” Just as likely… “I thought it was on ‘safe’.”
When people believe a gun to be “safe” (unloaded or safety on), they treat it differently, though they shouldn’t… if they abide by Rule #1 of the Four Rules.
I “cut my teeth” on a Glock. I do NOT agree that they are “inherently less safe” than any other type of pistol.
I’ve had my G19 since 1992. I now own several other guns, Glock and non-Glock. I don’t use the “safety” on those guns so-equipped. I have no need to use it. It is vestigial, in my opinion and experience. In all those 23 years, I’ve not had any sort of negligent discharge.
I like that! From now on I will refer to all other firearms as “Non Glock”.
I thought some here might appreciate the binary classification of firearms. 😉
“I’ve not had any sort of negligent discharge.”
Well, any sort of ND is like ‘a little bit’ pregnant…
How about “nary an ND?” 😉
Thank you Kirk, Excellent stuff, all of it.
Can of worms: Opened! 🙂
When Glock pistols were introduced to the American market (about 1985, I think) I put them in the shop. At first I was bewildered by them. No hammer, micky mouse flippy lever on the trigger, and weird balance. I can’t say that I liked them at all. At that time I had H&K P7M8s and M13s in the case too, so the competition was stiff, but Glock had the misfortune to be introduced at the same time as the Sig Sauer P226 which I immediately fell in love with. At heart I’m a DA revolver guy, and the P series manual of arms comes naturally to me. To this day I have never fired a Glock pistol (but I have admired their field knife). I know that I should, but the opportunity has not presented itself.
When it comes to equipment I am not a particularly religious person: I go with what works. The Sig P series works for me, but I suspect that more people shoot Glock than Sig. Maybe I’ll get a Glock just to find out what all the fuss is about.
I neglected to address the topic of this post: My gut feeling is that the Sig is inherently more safe than the Glock because of its de-cocker and 10 lb DA trigger pull. I like that the Sig’s 2nd and subsequent shots are at the lighter 4 lb trigger pull (lack of a similar feature was what threw me completely off Glock at that time). But, as I have never fired a Glock pistol, my analysis is “No Data”.
SAFE-DRAW gives the Austrian-born pistol an initial 17 pound trigger pull. This does not seem like a very safe draw to me.
“Don’t worry I’m a Glock ‘expert'” – shoots self in foot. Personally I like an external safety, I get to decide when to use it or not.
Do you honestly fear shooting yourself in the foot without a safety?
No, I’m more concerned with someone else shooting me in the foot or worse. I do like having something more between me and a ND than a few pounds of trigger pull though. Especially when I’m working, I’m climbing in and around things, moving through brush. I’ve never had anything catch but it’s a possibility something could deholster me.
Your reply made even less sense to me. I do apologize.
It’s not just newbies— Glock is THE most accidentally discharged firearm in the world among professionals. Note thatOck is now on what, generation 4 with their “safe system”? The early models had a very light trigger pull, around 3-1/2 pounds or so. Very easy to touch off a round during the excitement. If you recall the federal government’s invasion of Waco, Texas, you may remember watching the ATF agent climb a ladder to a roof and reach for his Glock. It discharged, almost striking the second agent on the ladder. When stuff hits the fan and the adrenaline is at high levels, things happen! People, professionals, place fingers on triggers in preparation for battle. Those are the facts. Glock is trying to remedy the situation by increasing the force necessary to pull the trigger. Glock has many fine features and are quite reliable now, although that was not always the case. There was a time when many agencies refused to even allow their officers to carry them due to failures during trials but they got past all that. Even do, they lead the way in accidental discharges. Time will tell if they ever get past that.
Personally, I think Sig got it right the first time—12 pound trigger pull in DA mode with s hammer lowering device. Super accurate right out of the box, enough room in the trigger guard for a gloved finger without an accidental discharge, and a super ergonomic design that naturally shoots where it is pointed. Try that with a Glock.
More bunk. An adrenaline-fueled spasmodic sympathetic closing of the hand and fingers while holding a pistol will also fire your SIG. Pull the trigger on either, and you will hear a bang.
I personally own a Glock 17 from Gen1, Gen2, Gen3 (several), and have shot several Gen4 G17 models (I own several Gen4 Glocks, but not a G17 Gen4). The trigger pull weight on the base model G17 has always been the same, and accomplished with the same parts (parts which were basically unchanged and backwardly compatible from Gen1 to Gen3); only the method for measuring the pull weight has changed, which resulted in the reported pull weight numbers being different (higher) for later models.
If you’re ever in the extreme north-central region, we could get together at the local range and I’d even let you shoot them, side-by-side. Other than the older guns being smoothed-up from use, there is no difference.
A glock is a semi-auto DAO REVOLVER. Period. same rules as revolvers, keep your finger off the cotton pickin trigger. If these guys had DAO SP101’s the same thing would happen.Hell, they would prob be safer. Also rounds expended per incident would be less cause the shooter would know “hey I’ve only got 6-8 shots I guess I should AIM”
Fact: Rounds discharged per event DOUBLED after the switch to auto loaders. I’m willing to bet “hits”went into the toilet along with it.
A gun that requires you to pull the trigger in order to take it down isn’t as safe as one that does not. Yes, I know, we should all follow all the rules, yadda yadda. We don’t. If we did we wouldn’t have to worry about any NDs…
Because unloading a gun before field stripping it is such a pain in the ass.
GLOCK = 1911 without a safety and a slightly heavier trigger pull.
Mildly disappointed that a weapon blog has adopted the government myth that inanimate objects can be “safe” or “unsafe.”
Striker fired weapons have been around 100+ years. Pistols have been regularly carried by general public for 30 years CCW time in most states. Why are most ND’s with glocks even when 5906 & other S&W and Rugers and Colt or other 1911 were the standards. I have been handling guns since I was 8. Only AD/ND ever was a glock 22 that my duty jacket caught reholstering.
Can we officially retire the term “booger hook” in favor of index or trigger finger? We are trying to be welcoming to newbies and women, and it is a crude term at best.
Putting on flame retardant suit in 3…2….1
Yes and No, because of how the safety exists. The gun it self is safe when inserting into external holster but there is always a chance of it getting caught on clothes when inserting in holsters that are tighter to the body or actually inside the waste band. There is also a little bit more chance of a child easily firing the gun because of the light trigger and one safety system. If your not bothers with this issue then there is no issue. Like anything there are always compromises.
Is it okay to admit I might make mistake with out being called an idiot, newbie, moron, or a$$-hat. Sometime there is a lot going on and muscle memory should a does take over, but what if the parameters of you surroundings change when the _____ hits the fan. When I was in combat and left on a mounted patrol in my HUMMV every one would lock and load their M4 as soon as we left the wire. I never charged my weapon until I stepped out of the truck. I am a big guy even when I am in shape. with the little room already given in the truck then they pack space with all the gizmos. while we are bouncing around being knocked off safe to fire and then a trigger getting snagged on some gear is not inconceivable. I did not want to shoot my foot. That’s why I carry a pistol with an external safety, because you cant train for every situation.
Comments are closed.