The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 25, 2002, 01:43 AM   #1
M1911Owner
Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2002
Posts: 42
Glock Accidental/Negligent Discharge Record

I've seen a number of threads with philosophical discussions about about whether Glocks are safe, given that they have no manual safety. It seems to me that there are enough Glocks in circulation that we shouldn't have to rely on philosophy--either they do have a problem with accidental/negligent discharges, or they don't.

So what is the cumulative experience of this Forum--how many folks here know of ADs/NDs with Glocks? Did it happen in concealed or open carry?

For comparison, tell us about 1911 experiences, as well. (In evaluating this, we need to take into account that there are probably a lot more Glocks being carried right now than there are 1911s.)
M1911Owner is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 03:19 AM   #2
Drjones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2002
Posts: 1,239
Quite frankly, there is no philosophy or arguing to it.

It begins and ends with rule #3. Period. Anyone who makes any claims, arguments, or rebuttals otherwise should not own, carry, nor handle firearms. Ever. Period.

Barring mechanical failures, guns do not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Here's where rule #3 comes in. In a big way.

Glocks, nor any other gun, most certainly do NOT have problems with ND's. It is negligent owners/operators that have NDs. Guns do not. Guns are perfectly safe left sitting alone. They only fire when someone else comes into contact with them, be they human, or in a recent case, a dog.

Why would you think open/concealed carry matters? As long as the trigger guard is covered, the gun is safe while in the holster.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue has been beaten to death, and frankly I'm quite tired of it. Glocks are not some "mythical beast" that will discharge when they feel like it. It's all about rule #3.

There's a lot to be said for Rule #3.

Welcome to TFL!!!

Did I mention rule #3 yet?
Drjones is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 03:28 AM   #3
tomkatz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Location: auburn wa.
Posts: 111
over on glock talk, I just read a post about this titled "I had an AD today no flames please", it was under general glocking, if anyone wants to take a look. Apparently he keeps his gun out of his holster when he drives, so when he is ready to holster it he places his trigger finger alongside the slide, but somehow inadvertantly puts his middle finger on the trigger and squeezes. 10 mm no less. Goes through the floorboard, hits the ground and then who knows where. Some who responded said they have had negligent discharges too. Myself, I've carried various glocks for the last 10 years with never so much as a close call, several friends carry them and they have never had any problems either. To me, those who say it's an inevitable part of carrying a gun are accepting the fact that it will happen, I just don't accept that. Just my .02....tom
tomkatz is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 04:07 AM   #4
croyance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2001
Posts: 3,604
Well, I believe that ND's will occur with any design - you can't remove the human from the equation.
It seems like at least one LEO per year will shoot themselves during or after qualifications. This is in part due to the design, which requires that the trigger be pulled to field-strip the gun. This is common among striker-fired designs. The LEO's didn't eject their magazines and clear their chamber. I suspect there are many more instances where nobody was hit, so no story made the news.
Now I do believe that in these instances, the operator is totally at fault. However, you can always assume that somebody will have a brain fart along the way, so the accidents are somewhat predictable.
croyance is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 04:16 AM   #5
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
I have two Glocks with a combined age of about 20 years and a minimum of 1,000 rounds fired per year (17) and 200 rounds per year (27). Glock 17 has been primary CCW gun since around '88.

No ND's to date.

My 1911 is about 15 years old and it gets around 200-300 rounds per year and also has a clean record to date.

So based on my experiences, the Glock does not have a liability because it lacks a manual safety.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 05:00 AM   #6
New_comer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2001
Location: Manila, Phil.
Posts: 1,004
If this includes firing out of battery, then I spoke with one who brought in his G23 for servicing for doing just that.

The mag was expelled in the process, and for reasons not too clearly explained, resulted in minor scratches at the back of his right hand. The gun was stripped and inspected, and aside from the apparent tightness in the striker action, it was declared just fine.

Out-of spec reload maybe the culprit...
__________________
Regards,

New_comer

USP9F, Remington 870

"It not in the size of the thing, it's how you use it..."
New_comer is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 09:27 AM   #7
Jimmy Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2002
Posts: 688
An idiot is dangerous with any gun.

You can be a cop and an idiot.
Jimmy Mac is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 09:28 AM   #8
the blind lefty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2002
Location: ohio
Posts: 320
the last time this subject came up i got a suprising amount of flack for saying what Drjones just said. what kills me is how many then steadfastly claim they carry a(real) gun at all times,and have it loaded with the highest stopping percentage cartridges in its class.
how much sense does that make?-
the blind lefty is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 10:40 AM   #9
MrAcheson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Posts: 442
As Dr. Jones has said, the Glock is a very reliable firearm. It has enough internal and external safeties that the gun will not fire unless the trigger is pulled or the gun has serious mechanical problems. Of those two choice the first is by far the most common reason for an ND with a glock.

Now the problems with glocks and safety are these:

(1) The gun won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. The external safety is on the trigger. Therefore the external safety does little to prevent the trigger from being pulled since most situations where the trigger is pulled inappropriately would also disengage the safety. This is why glocks require holsters which cover the trigger.

(2) Glocks have a simple manual of arms. Glock owners are helpful and often seek to promote Glocks to new shooters for just this reason. This makes them appealing to new shooters. However, Glocks require proper gun handling skills and firearms awareness which most new shooters lack. Glocks takedown process requires the trigger to be pulled which is potentially even worse for individuals with poor firearms discipline.

In short glocks are good guns, they are safe and reliable if handled and carried properly. They are also highly intolerant of mistakes and poor firearms discipline if handled or carried improperly. That is the big complaint. Yes your first and most important safety is between your ears, but redundancy is a good thing should that safety fail.
__________________
These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government.
Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
MrAcheson is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:07 AM   #10
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Well, Rule #3 about covers it. I've owned a Glock since about 1992 and a 1911 since 1984 and had no AD's or ND's with either, no close calls either.

I found the manual safety disengaged on my 1911 two times in 18 years while carrying it. No ND's though cause the safety in my head was still engaged and I didn't put my finger on the trigger before checking / unholstering it.


Yes, gun are dangerous. They are not safe. People can be safe however...
Edward429451 is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:12 AM   #11
johnwill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 3,451
Quote:
Glocks takedown process requires the trigger to be pulled which is potentially even worse for individuals with poor firearms discipline.
The Ruger MK-II requires the trigger to be pulled to field strip it too, but I don't see anyone complaining about it. The S&W Sigma also requires the trigger to be pulled to field strip it, let's all complain about that one!

The plain truth here is, anyone that's cleaning a loaded gun shouldn't handle any gun, Glocks included! Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

People with "poor firearms discipline" will manage to display it in other ways...
__________________
I collect old pistols, got any?
johnwill is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:20 AM   #12
SquirrelNuts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2002
Location: Marietta, GA-home of the Big Chicken
Posts: 247
My Glock has its own three safeties, plus another expernal safety-that being my finger.

-SquirrelNuts
__________________
I lost all of my guns in a boating accident-all of them. I cannot remember the name of the lake though. So I do not have any guns to register, you see.
SquirrelNuts is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:25 AM   #13
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Washington (Com)Post did a series of articles on this subject a few years ago.

LOTS of NDs, not a few of which resulted in the wounding or death of people being apprehended, or other members of the Metropolitan Police Force.

A friend of mine does firearms training for MPD. He blew off the tips of two fingers when he ND'ed his Glock at the range.

The transition to Glocks was made when training budgets were being cut to the freaking bone, and tons of new recruits were being pulled in. It was a recipe for disaster.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:32 AM   #14
Handy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Posts: 8,785
The upshot of all this is that, philisophically, no one SHOULD have a Glock ND, but many people have and do. The only ND at my old IDPA club was by a very intelligent and trained lawyer who shot his own calf in a car with a G17. He was no idiot or screwball, and had much formal training and practice.

The answer to your question is that Glock's are less tolerant of handling "errors" and there seem to be more ND's associated with this weapon than others using a heavier first trigger pull (Sig, Beretta, etc.)

Personally, I took my own advice and installed a NY trigger in my G19. Requiring a slightly stronger and more deliberate trigger pull, it better guards against fumbling and doesn't affect shooting.


The problem with arguing, "Good training and discipline are the only safeties you need" is that everyone makes mistakes when using their hands. Unless you've never dropped a dish, touched a hot burner or cut yourself in the kitchen; your fingers are liable to end up where you don't want them. Whether this happens when you're handling a Glock or not is just chance.
Handy is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:40 AM   #15
gumshoe4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2000
Posts: 266
One of our senior agents had an ND at the range two years ago. He previously retired from a very large law enforcement agency where he carried a revolver for virtually his entire career. Then he came over here and transitioned to the Glock 22.

On the particular day in question, the qualification shoot was over and everyone was cleaning their guns. This gent got the order of the manual of arms a little bent. He dropped the mag and pulled the trigger to begin the field strip process without clearing the chamber first and the gun went bang. Fortunately, the gun was pointed in a safe direction and no one was injured.

Conclusions:

1. Not all cops are gun buffs. In fact, most aren't.

2. Because of rule #1, they revert to their past experience when handling weapons. In this case, the guy's primary experience was with revolvers, not automatics, so he screwed up the manual of arms. ALSO, however, he was pointing the gun in a safe direction when the ND occurred, so no one got hurt.

3. More training is needed. Also, perhaps some people would be better off with revolvers than with pistols, based upon no more than their years of experience with that particular style of weapon. PARTICULARLY if they are not gun buffs.

4. This does not necessarily mean that this cop or all others who have NDs are idiots. It means that we have to continually practice gun safety and be trained.

Anyone who labels others idiots in such circumstances obviously believes that he himself would never mishandle a gun and is therefore an ND waiting to happen. Let's do away with the name calling and resolve the problem.

Bob
gumshoe4 is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:48 AM   #16
kahrma
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 26, 2002
Location: The jungle
Posts: 369
Jimmy Mac wrote:

"An idiot is dangerous with any gun.

You can be a cop and an idiot."
____________________________________________________

I think Jimmy Mac just won the prize for "understatement of the year"!
__________________
Hee Yaaa! Karate chop!
kahrma is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 11:57 AM   #17
Jimmy Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2002
Posts: 688
I really do not understand just how anyone that knows even the slightest bit about how firearms work would try to clean a loaded gun.

You have to dryfire the Glock before you take the slide off.

How can anyone be so stupid as to not check the chamber of the pistol before they dryfire it?

These are police officers that have been trained to handle dangerous weapons but they still can't perform such a simple task as checking the chamber.

I still say you would have to be an idiot to have an ND while cleaning a gun.
Jimmy Mac is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:04 PM   #18
JNB01
Member
 
Join Date: September 20, 2001
Posts: 23
It can hapeen w/ any design.

As far as holstering a pistol, if one forgets to decock a Sig, Beretta, std. P99, ect. they are essentially re-hoslstering a single action off-safe pistol. Or, if one forgets to on-safe a 1911 or BHP, same thing.

The operator must be aware of and become intimate with a given pistols function, and train with it. This is the responsibility of the person owning the gun. When a mistake is made, some are quick to blame the design instead of putting the fault where it lies, w/ themselves.

The Glock is probably less forgiving of negligent handling, but any firearm can be very dangerous in untrained hands plain and simple.

Best, JNB01
JNB01 is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:30 PM   #19
Baron Holbach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 238
Lack of training for the firearms' handler is one of the issues behind the number of negligent discharges from Glocks. I would never carry a Glock with a round chambered unless I received sufficient training for this style of pistol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...lice4page1.htm
Baron Holbach is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:32 PM   #20
NewShooter78
Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2002
Location: The City that Care Forgot (New Orleans)
Posts: 80
Well I don't know about all of you, but every time I remove a mag from my gun I make sure the chamber is clear. That includes going to the range or carrying. When I take my gun out of its holster at the end of the night to put it away, I always clear the chamber, and I don't always carry with a round in the pipe. Redundancy is what I use to double check the safety between my ears.
NewShooter78 is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:37 PM   #21
gumshoe4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2000
Posts: 266
Hey Jimmy...it happens. It seems crazy to you, because you're a gun buff. You like guns and are interested in them. The thought of someone not being as interested in guns or perhaps not having a good understanding of how they work seems unbelievable to you, because you are interested and so is every other gun buff friend you have. In some respects, I feel the same way, because I'm interested in firearms, too.

The fact is, though, that most cops are not gun buffs. Sorry, but that's the truth. Moreover, when you've spent your entire career handling a certain type of gun (revolver) in a certain way, and you're not particularly interested in guns in the first place, NDs.

Listen carefully, here...I'm not making excuses for the officer and I can tell you that he was required to attend remedial training and write lots of paper about his ND. I am, however, saying that this incident shows that gun safety is in the mind, not in the external safety lever (or lack thereof). I'm also saying that there ought to a way to accommodate this guy's revolver training and experience mindset. Why should this guy be forced to carry an automatic when he's been successful with the revolver to date? It actually makes much more sense to let him carry what he's comfortable with (within reason).

The only other thing to add is to remind you that "pride goeth before a fall". If you are telling me you've never dropped a gun, mishandled a gun or otherwise done something foolish with a gun, sorry-I don't believe you. We who handle guns ALL have, on occasion, made a mistake or two with firearms. Fortunately, because of our training or just because of pure dumb luck, nothing happened. We shook our heads and used it for a learning experience and a reminder not to get too cocky. You want to call this guy an idiot-fine. Hope you're perfect.

Bob
gumshoe4 is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:44 PM   #22
MrAcheson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Posts: 442
Jimmy Mac,

Its not unheard of for someone to either get the manual of arms screwed up (like the aforementioned revolver guy) or to equate racking the slide with checking the chamber (a potentially costly mistake). For instance somebody might check the chamber before dropping the magazine. Bang! Oops.

The issue with glocks is not that they are inherently unsafe, I mean we're not talking about Lorcins here. The issue is that NDs can happen with glocks after only one mistake. However a gun with additional handling safeties usually needs additional mistakes, like not putting the safety on. The chain of faults is longer so the likelihood of an AD is hopefully less.
__________________
These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government.
Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
MrAcheson is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 12:54 PM   #23
Baron Holbach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 238
From the Washington Post

The [Washington, D.C. police] District paid just over $1 million for 4,300 Glocks.

The decision was immediately controversial. Dissenting voices were beginning to be heard about "Glock Perfection." Perhaps the most significant criticism came from the FBI. The FBI Academy's firearms training unit tested various semiautomatic handguns and in a 1988 report gave the Glock low marks for safety. The report cited the weapon's "high potential for unintentional shots."

Unintentional shots would turn out to be a disquieting byproduct of Glock's unique design, according to many experts and to lawsuits filed against Glock in the last decade. Even though the Glock does not have an external manual safety, it incorporates three internal safeties intended to prevent the gun from discharging if dropped or jostled. A unique feature of the Glock is that a shooter disengages all three safeties at once by pulling the trigger.

"You can't blame the Glock for accidental discharges," said former police chief Isaac Fulwood Jr., who took over the force a few months after the District switched to Glocks. "The gun doesn't accidentally shoot. The officer has got to pull the trigger."

But officers found it difficult in tense street situations to keep their fingers off the triggers of their Glocks.

"When they feel in danger or they feel that somebody is in danger and they're really going to use that weapon, they'll put their finger on the trigger," Detective Ron Robertson, former head of the D.C. police union, said in a deposition in July. "It's kind of hard to keep the finger out of there."

D.C. police are trained to carry their Glocks in the "street-load mode" – with a round in the chamber ready to fire when the trigger is pulled. A Glock has an innovative "trigger safety" – a sort of trigger-within-a-trigger that makes it virtually impossible for the Glock to go off unless the trigger is pulled. But officers in stressful situations might begin the process of squeezing the trigger safety in order to be primed to fire, several firearms experts said.

Then-Deputy Chief Rodwell Catoe wrote in an internal memo in 1990, "An unholstered Glock in the 'street load' mode with the trigger safety mechanism pressed is a profoundly dangerous weapon, even in the most ideal conditions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...lice4page2.htm
Baron Holbach is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 01:36 PM   #24
Drjones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2002
Posts: 1,239
Gee, that's great and all, Baron, but it is purely a result of poor training, no more, no less.

How many times does it need to be said, even by LEO's on this board that being a cop does NOT mean that one is proficient or competent in any way, shape, or form, with firearms.
Drjones is offline  
Old November 25, 2002, 01:39 PM   #25
9x19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 1998
Location: Sherman, TX USA
Posts: 3,750
"Perhaps the most significant criticism came from the FBI. "

Interesting... of course, now the FBI now issues Glock 22s or 23s to all new agents.

I guess even the FBI can become better educated over time.
__________________
Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!
9x19 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13642 seconds with 7 queries