Glock Accidental/Negligent Discharge Record

[juliet charley]

9x19 - There's no confusion over Glock's "safe-action" action design. The Glock is a striker-fired, DAO semi-automatic. If you are still confused over the issue, maybe Jimmy Mac can explain it to you. He does understand how Glock's work.

Drjones - First you write, "Glocks are no different than any other gun. Period." When I draw a logical conclusion from your statement, then you want to come back and say that Glocks are different. It is though differences that make Glocks more prone to operator errors than most other designs. So, yes, there are pistols that are more prone to operator erros than others, and Glock is very high on the list of designs more susceptible to operator error--not a judgement, just a statement of fact.

tomkatz - Frankly, I could write that if you believe it is impossible for you to have an AD then you are grossly overconfident and dangerous. I let rather work with somebody who can acknowledge that they are human and can make mistakes than with somebody who believes they are perfect and above humna frailties. Definitely, there are two sides to that coin.

I think the direction the thread has taken illustrates that there is a continuum of handguns from those less prone to operator error to those most prone to operator with Glocks somewhere near the top of those prone to operator error (along with several other handguns mentioned) as illustrated by some of you are pointing handguns you consider more prone to operator error.

All weapons are compromises. Glocks compromise certain areas to obtain the results that some people want. Other handguns compromise in other areas to obtain different results that appeal to other people. It is good sense to take in account the compromises in your chosen weapon to obtain the results you desire. In other words, weapon "A" is marginally faster into at action at the expense of being slightly more prone to handling errors; weapon "B" is marginally slower into action but less prone to handling error. Glock is a compromise at the weapon "A" end of the continuum. Take your choice.

[JIH]

Also don't you also have to dry fire the XD before field stripping?

Yep. It disassembles like a Glock/SIG hybrid (which is kinda what it is). You lock it back with the slide stop (which should eject a round in the chamber, if there is one), rotate the lever down, release the slide, but you still have to dry fire it to unlock the slide from the frame.

Show me 500 1911 shooters and I'll show you 499.5 that turn the muzzle toward their face to depress the spring plug

Actually, I'll show you 499 who just pull out the slide stop and take the slide off the gun. I don't know of a whole lot of people (at least not running in my circles) who actually use that goofy bushing tool.

Nevertheless, I do agree that it's unwise to not take a second and clear the gun before disassembly. I don't understand why people don't do that.

[Jimmy Mac]

JC

Thank you.

At least we agree on something.

[Baron Holbach]

If I owned a Glock, I would first get training on how to handle, shoot, and field strip the gun. Were I too CCW the gun, I would seek special training in the proper methods of holstering, carrying, unholstering, and reholstering it. I would use the Glock for extensive target practice and home defense. The Glock, in trained and experienced hands, offers the home defense operator a unique advantage in responding to a life-threatening Bad Guy or where use of the pistol is needed in a timely fashion.

[9x19]

Juliet, ever helpful, illustrates my point for me when she says: "The Glock is a striker-fired, DAO semi-automatic."

If JimmyMac agrees with that, he is as confused about Glock's Safe Action design and function as Juliet is.



As has been explained on these boards numerous time: Glock's Safe Action is not a DAO, it is uniquely different... Juliet just refuses to believe it, and therein lies her confusion.

I'll give the Glock dissenters the final word... as it so often seems to be all they really want.

[tomkatz]

juliet...I don't mean to single you out, I've made the same statement on glocktalk, and while I don't believe it would be impossible for anyone to have a ND, I still say if you don't make that crucial mistake it won't happen, be totally diligent when using this tool that can kill you or someone else and it WON'T happen. I haven't had a ND in 37 years of shooting and carrying all kinds of weopons, carrying glocks the last 10, does this come from good luck? I prefer to think that it's because I've handled my guns in the right way....tom

[Jimmy Mac]

There is nothing to be confused about.

The Glock is not fully cocked. The trigger pull serves a double action. It pulls the striker to the rear and then releases it.

The Glock's design is so simple anyone should be able to understand it.

Anyone with average intelligence can also detail strip one and change most any part in the gun in just seconds.

You can change a connector faster than I could explain how it is done.

[ronin308]

I really don't understand what the debate is here. The Glock is a gun. It is operated with a trigger. Do not touch trigger if you do not want a bullet sliding out of the muzzle. If you have to dryfire to strip: Lose the mag, empty the chamber, verify visually a few times that the chamber is empty . Its not rocket science.

I've fired free pistols that have triggers measured in ounces. They lack an external safety. Have I had an ND with one? No.

[Drjones]

I really don't understand what the debate is here.

Apparently some people don't understand the fact that a bullet will come out of a gun when you pull the trigger. They also seem to dislike that fact.

Well said, ronin.

[45Rookie]

It seems that some people have forgotten three rules of gun safety


1.Always assume gun is loaded
2.KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER
3.Know what your going to destroy if you pull the Trigger.

Apparently some people don't understand the fact that a bullet will come out of a gun when you pull the trigger. They also seem to dislike that fact.

Dr. Jones - I agree AD/NDs can happen if its a Glock, Berreta, HK, SIG, Walther, Ruger, CZ, EAA, SW...any firearm for that matter if the user ignores proper gun handling procedures. Hell read the manual I dont care, people just be safe!!!

Guns do exactly what people tell them to do. (usually unless there is some malfunction)

[Jimmy Mac]

Perhaps they are waiting on some new type of smart gun that can only fire if it is pointing at an attacker that is in the process of trying to kill its owner.

I don't think that techonlogy is avalible yet so we will all still have to check our chambers before dry firing.

[Blackhawk]

I really don't understand what the debate is here.

ronin, it's just a touch of contagious congnitive dissonance about Glocks:

* "Glocks are DAO"

* "Glocks have hair triggers"

* "How can DAO guns have hair triggers?"

Well, Glocks are not DAO under the traditional meaning of DAO that the firing mechanism is not energized at all except by the trigger beginning at the time the trigger is pulled. Glocks do not have hair triggers since 88 ounces is hardly "hair" when some guns are tuned to have triggers that are fractions of ONE ounce.

Nevertheless, some get all balled up in what they think they know and get a bit emotional about it.

Glocks simply have short and relatively light triggers that can more easily fire the gun when clumsily handled, and that contributes to their reputation of being more "dangerous" than other guns. They're not, but humans tend to blame anybody and anything other than themselves when something goes wrong.

A similar mess involves the need to pull the trigger to disassemble a Glock. How far does a manufacturer need to dummy down a design so that sloppy, clumsy, or careless people won't hurt themselves with it? The answer's different for Tonka Toys for children and firearms, methinks....

How hard is the concept that "If you pull the trigger on a chambered round, the gun will fire" to understand? Seems like anybody without a flat line brain scan would figure out what to do and NOT to do under those circumstances, but maybe I'm overly optimistic.

[johnwill]

I think I've made my way through all these, nothings been resolved, like drjones said, the glock contingent won't change our minds based on anything we've read here.

You're right on this point, but for about 60 messages, I was wondering where JC was! Normally, he's on a Glock thread likes flies on ... well, you know.

[Blackhawk]

johnwill, the biggest surprise to me on this thread was that somebody thought Juliet Charlie was a female. I'd never considered that, as I'd presumed from the first time I saw it that the name was just military for JC. But, what do I know...?

[Jimmy Mac]

While I seldom agree with JCs logic and opinions I have to admit that when he states something is fact about a gun design useally he is correct.

And he is about as female as Mr T.

[MasterBlaster]

What an exhausting thread. No doubt Glock's have a fanatic fan base.

But the original question was whether or not Glock's are more prone to ND than many other weapons. With any weapon with no external safeties and no hard DA first pull, the answer would have to be yes. Glock's field-stripping technique only adds additional (and needless) potential ND danger to that mix.

Of course with any ND, the operator is at fault. However, any objective person must admit that a gun's design and function can mitigate or increase the chances of an operator's ND.

Glock's are the perfect special forces weapon. Quick first shot, accurate, reliable as hell. They are less than perfect for police officers who often chase perps with their guns drawn and have a tendency to put their fingers on the trigger under stress. The average citizen is probably in over his head without extensive training and practice.

Of course training is essential. Which is why the gun was probably designed with special forces in mind. However, it is now available to "everyman," the vast majority of whom will never put its impressive combat capabilities to use.

If you insist on high combat capabilities in your weapon, then you must accept the downside of higher ND risk. Are Glocks inherently unsafe? No. But they are less safe to draw, handle and disassemble than many other guns. Pretending otherwise is nothing but pure bias.

I think the gun's real or perceived high danger factor is a draw for many of its biggest fans, though I doubt they'd admit it. Hence the BS that only "dummies" can ND. They always place themselves above "the herd." They may be right, or they may be wrong.

The problem is there's only one way to find out. And it's the hard way.

[ronin308]

DocJones- Trigger pull=bullet....maybe we can come up with an even shorter Glock safety rule...

Blackhawk- I didn't read all of the pages and I was wondering why there are 5 pages about rule #3! My contention is that: Glocks are not DAO in the tradtion sense, just like you said. And Glock triggers feel like a staplegun

45Rookie- You forgot Rule 2: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. But I guess you've kind of lumped Rule 2 and Rule 4 into your rule 3

[Drjones]

Master Blaster, I agree with you on some points, but I still must say that you are profoundly wrong.

But the original question was whether or not Glock's are more prone to ND than many other weapons. With any weapon with no external safeties and no hard DA first pull, the answer would have to be yes. Glock's field-stripping technique only adds additional (and needless) potential ND danger to that mix.

I suppose you could argue that a gun with more safety features, esp. the external kind, are easier to fire than a gun lacking such external safety features. DO NOT confuse "easier to fire" with "less safe." They are two different worlds as far as I'm concerned. Is a car with a lighter gas pedal more dangerous than a car like my BMW, which has a fairly stout gas pedal?

However, as many of us here have pointed out, myself and ronin in particular, it all comes back to keeping your finger off the trigger.

Re: Glocks field-strip technique, again, you are incorrect. There are numerous other models of firearms which require the trigger be pulled for disassembly, yet we are not arguing nor questioning their safety. If you do not want a bullet to come out of your gun, do not pull the trigger. If you need to pull the trigger and do not want a bullet coming out of your gun, you had darn well better make sure the gun is fully unloaded.

If you are incapable of doing this, you should not ever own, carry, or handle a firearm. Every object has inherent and usually obvious safety rules.

In order to keep from cutting yourself, it would behoove you to keep your body parts away from the sharp and pointy parts of a knife. Would you argue then, that certain makes of knifes are more prone to AC's? (Accidental Cuts) Heck, fixed blades actually have NO safety mechanism at all! Save for the sheath, of course.

Of course with any ND, the operator is at fault. However, any objective person must admit that a gun's design and function can mitigate or increase the chances of an operator's ND.

Again, I must insist you are wrong. Let's assume that on a gun, you must pull the trigger in order for it to go "bang." I know its a CRAZY statement, but bear with me... If you must pull the trigger for the gun to fire, it would then follow that one would NOT pull the trigger to keep from setting off the weapon. Safety features are irrelevant. The gun will do what it was designed to do if and when the trigger is pulled. To argue against this on any basis is sheer lunacy.

Safety features on a car are a perfect example. You can load every airbag in the world into a car, but that does NOT have any effect on whether or not you will get into an accident. I can drive a Pinto far more safely than some can drive Volvos and Mercedes. It all comes down to the competence of the operator, nothing more.

Glocks are the perfect special forces weapon. Quick first shot, accurate, reliable as hell. They are less than perfect for police officers who often chase perps with their guns drawn and have a tendency to put their fingers on the trigger under stress. The average citizen is probably in over his head without extensive training and practice.

I agree that they may not be the best option for LEO's, but citizens? What sort of training would you recommend for a citizen to be competent with a Glock? PLEASE tell me how many different ways you need to tell someone that you do not touch the trigger unless you want the gun to fire.

Is that the sort of training and practice you would recommend? An instructor dreaming up 80 bazillion different ways to say "KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER." Is that what you need?

If you insist on high combat capabilities in your weapon, then you must accept the downside of higher ND risk. Are Glocks inherently unsafe? No. But they are less safe to draw, handle and disassemble than many other guns. Pretending otherwise is nothing but pure bias.

Hmmmm...I don't think anyone would argue that an M4/AR-15 type is especially prone to ND's, yet those are the small arm of choice for our military. Same for the Mp5.

Safety for one gun is safety for all. You clearly shouldn't mash a glock carelessly into a holster any more than you should a Beretta. Or a Sig. I don't understand your bit about "combat capabilities." What does that have to do with anything? So my Beretta 96 is more prone to ND's than my Glock because the Beretta is standard issue for the military?

I think the gun's real or perceived high danger factor is a draw for many of its biggest fans, though I doubt they'd admit it. Hence the BS that only "dummies" can ND. They always place themselves above "the herd." They may be right, or they may be wrong.

The problem is there's only one way to find out. And it's the hard way.

We don't say "dummies" ND. We say you are far more likely to ND with ANY gun if you lose concentration for a moment.

Same with driving. Ever been tooling along, when suddenly you realize you have no recollection at ALL of the last several miles you drove? I bet you are FAR more prone to accidents during that "zoning-off" time than any other time. (Save for being drunk or almost asleep)

Please tell me master blaster how many different ways and times must we tell people to simply keep their fingers off the trigger?

[fuchikoma]

Glocks are not SA. Pulling the trigger pulls the striker the rest of the way back, and releases it.

They're also not DA. If you have a light primer strike or a hangfire, go ahead and pull the trigger again. It won't even go click. You can manually yank the trigger back into place, but it only stays there because of the trigger safety; it won't fire until you rack it again.

Hence the term "Safe Action." It's not just a sales gimmick; it describes a system that, from a partially-cocked position, releases firing pin block, and drop safety, then pulls the striker back a bit further, then releases it.

[Blackhawk]

Please tell me master blaster how many different ways and times must we tell people to simply keep their fingers off the trigger?

Good summation, but it's beside the point.

People are NOT going to keep their fingers off the trigger no matter how often they're told and trained to do that. If you can't accept that, then you can't understand the point of the thread.

Since they're not going to keep their fingers off the trigger, are Glocks more likely to be involved in ADs/NDs than guns with heavier/longer triggers or equipped with manual external safeties or that don't need to have the trigger pulled to field strip?

That's a loaded question because the telegraphed answer is obviously yes. So what?

Maybe the original poster intended to stealthily bash Glocks, but I don't think so. The thread has actually had some worthwhile points raised and been valuable in raising the awareness of some of the characteristics of Glocks.

It was a significant offense in the military to have a round chambered in a holstered M1911, which pretty much renders it useless in a huge percentage of cases where it might be needed. So are M1911s inherently more dangerous than Glocks in chambered conditons? I think so, but Glocks catch the spears because there are just so many of them.....

[Blackhawk]

fuchikoma, you're right, but many people only have 3 pigeon holes to describe actions of handguns. SA, DA, or DAO. SF should be in there, but it's not, so they vainly try to equate it with what they're familiar with.

Everybody KNOWs that a chambered, cocked, off safe, SA is really, really ready to fire with a touch on the trigger that may offer 3-5# of resistance over 3/8-1/2" of travel. And they think that a DAO with a trigger resistance of 7-9 tons over a travel of 3-5 feet is pretty safe to handle.

But then we have the pigeon holers who say the Glock is DAO when its trigger and firing characteristics are closer to that "dangerous" SA condition than any DAO. Wrong thinking, but inevitible when the "gun owning public" can't squeeze SF actions into their crippled way of thinking.

[Pampers]

is that, due to the fact that Glocks are so simple to operate, they are purchased by people who will get NO training at all. I've seen them purchased by men for their daughters and girlfriends. They'll be taken to a range and shown how easy they are to shoot. MAYBE they'll be taught the four basic rules of gun safety, but probably not.

Even the Glockophiles admit that safety is training related, and in the hands of an untrained neophite, due to the simplicity of operation,a Glock is an accident waiting to happen!

Glocks are dangerous.
I read that in a paper or here...

[the blind lefty]

doesn't everybody,*ahem*,shouldn't everyone drop the magazine and lock the slide back prior to take down of any gun so equipped?- i'm getting the impression some find the take down of Glocks lacking ergonomic logic. i'm quite sure no military would adopt a gun that required a bullet to be in the chamber for take down,but that's what i'm hearing as a possible AD.
i just got a Sig P232.i didn't know how to break down the gun,so I READ THE MANUAL. after making sure the gun was empty,i proceeded to easily take down the gun,then struggled with reassembly. i may be a slope foreheaded underachiever,but i do understand the idea of self preservation.
i've read some logical stuff here by people far more educated than myself. your fellow man will continue to screw up,but don't make the mistake that it's religated to the dim. a lesser mind put together right simply lacks the gray areas of the educationally endowed.the"fact"that Glocks are more dangerous/AD prone requires looking past the rules of safe handling.it's as simple as red light,green light.

[M1911Owner]

Blackhawk,

No, I really did not intend for this thread to be a troll! But, it seems to be turning out that way.

I specifically asked about Glocks because there are so many of them out there, so there should be a statistically useful track record. However, my actual interest is in the Kahr PM9, which I've been thinking about getting for a concealed carry gun in no-jacket casual wear. (This would be primarily for possible future use if the situation in this country continues to get more dangerous. I live in Kali, so getting a carry permit is not easy. At this point, the gun would be for range use in order to be properly trained with it if I ever decide that I do need to carry.)

My question was prompted by three things. First, there was a thread going in this forum where a guy was trying to get people to buy off on him carrying an M1911 in Condition 0, on the theory that that would be no more dangerous than carrying a Glock in its normal loaded and chambered state. My instinctive reaction is that carrying an M1911 in Condition 0 is completely insane, which got me to wondering about Glocks, and in turn about Kahrs because they operate in the same manner. Secondly, I had had the impression that people carry "pocket guns" in their pocket, with no holster. It seemed to me that that would be extremely dangerous with a Glock or a Kahr, as any item that happens to come into contact with the trigger could cause the gun to fire. (I have since learned that Mr. Handley makes some excellent pocket holsters for Kahrs.) And thirdly, there was a thread here about adding an aftermarket safety to a Glock, where there was a flame war going on that said, in essence, that anyone with half an ounce of brains doesn't need a safety on a Glock to be safe with it.

That third thread is really what directly prompted me to ask the question, because I was hearing a lot of philosophy about whether or not Glocks were safe. It occurred to me that philosophy wasn't necessary to address that issue, because there are lots and lots of Glocks in daily use, so it has by now established a track record for safety, or lack thereof. Since the cumulative Glock experience of people in this forum, when you include all the people they know about in PDs and so forth, is huge, it made sense to ask what people here know about NDs with Glocks.

You and Handy have summarized very plainly the information I hoped to elicit: Because only a single handling error is required to cause a Glock to fire, Glock users do indeed experience more NDs than those who use guns that require more than a single lapse to cause a ND.

On the other hand, many, many people have trained to the point where they are able to safely carry Glocks. And, if one is carrying a holstered gun for self-defense purposes, the only time the trigger would be exposed is when it is drawn in self-defense, so the number of opportunities for a lapse is vanishingly small. (Not counting, of course, when the gun is taken to the range, cleaned, etc. Those are carefully-controlled situations where careful handling can assure safety. My concern is about when the weapon spends large amounts of time carried on my person, with the randomness implied by normal, day-to-day life.) (This is in contrast to a peace officer who carries a gun, who can be expected to have a significant number of occasions where he draws on someone he does not plan to shoot, runs with the gun in his hand, etc.)

I haven't decided yet what I'll do with this information. For one thing, I don't think the PM9 is even available in California yet, so any decision to purchase is clearly deferred until it is certified by the AG.

Incidentally, the issue of dry firing during disassembly is not something I'm concerned about. Before dry firing, I check the chamber, and point the gun in a safe direction. So, there are two separate, manual safety precautions to assure that it's safe. (And it could be that a Kahr PM9 doesn't need to be dry fired during disassembly, anyway--I don't know this yet.)