Are Glocks More Prone To Misfire?

[GLOOB]

I know that some of you would like to distinguish long arms from sidearms when it comes to the benefits of a manual safety, but I fail to see a difference. (NOTE: It is not my opinion that revolvers need a manual safety as they are substantially different from semi-automatic pistols and it is very difficult to inadvertently discharge a revolver in double-action mode with a long, hard 10-12 lb. trigger pull.)

How anyone can honestly dismiss the difference between a longarm and a pistol, and then turn around and claim a difference between a revolver and a DAO semiauto... ?

Longarms aren't carried in holsters. You sling one over your shoulder, and the trigger is exposed. When you reach for it in a hurry, you may pick it up wrong and grab the trigger. Many have sub 2lb triggers and are not drop safe. When hunting, a longarm is a weapon of opportunity. Your unsuspecting prey will wait while you flip the safety off.

Revolvers vs Glock? Both can have between ~4-15 lb trigger pulls. But only the Glock can be changed with drop in parts. The biggest difference I see is that a Glock can't be cocked/decocked inappropriately, and there are many more and better holster options. Also, where do you feel DA/SA decocker pistols fall? Are they considered distinct and safe like revolvers in your mind? Why? The DA trigger pull on some of these guns is as light as a Glock trigger. I tried an FNP the other day and whoa, that trigger is light in DA and scary in SA (and it's definitely on my short list ).

I am sure that there have been many scenarios where a manual safety has failed to prevent an AD/ND. However, manual safeties certainly do prevent some AD/ND’s. In my judgment, protecting the user or innocent bystanders from the user’s negligence is a good thing.

So again, I'll ask you if you would willingly put a magazine disconnect safety on all of your firearms.

 

[REAPER4206969]

But perhaps someone out there can answer this question for me: Why does the U.S. military demand manual safeties on all of its standard issue long arms and sidearms?

 

[gym]

Because you don't have to be very profficient with a handgun to join the army, that's why. You will find may who are but just like any other "job" that requires the employee or contractor carry a gun, it doesn't mean they are profficient in the use of weapons, it just means the have to carry one. So the military knowing that there are a few flaws in the mental capacity or lack of manual or mental dexterity would prefer to make life as safe as possible for everyone around the few people who have a problem tying their shoes, let alone having a loaded wepon with no safety. It does not mean that it's better it means it's safer for the rest of the folks who may be around the turniphead who shoots himself in the foot, or show his new toy to his buddy, and accidentally blows the guys head off.

 

[jem375]

Before Gaston Glock came along in the early 1980's, we wouldn’t be having this discussion about the pros and cons of manual safeties because virtually every semi-automatic pistol on the market had at least one manual safety of some type. Why? Because it was the combined knowledge and experience of some of the greatest firearms designers known to mankind that manual safeties reduce (NOT eliminate) the risk of someone being seriously injured or killed when the user makes a mistake and causes something to contact the trigger. Back then, most responsible gun owners would have considered it dangerous, negligent and totally irresponsible to carry a semi-automatic in condition 1 without engaging the manual safety.

Again, let me reiterate that I am not suggesting manual safeties will prevent all accidental or negligent discharges. Any safety can be defeated and I am sure that there have been many scenarios where a manual safety has failed to prevent an AD/ND. However, manual safeties certainly do prevent some AD/ND’s. In my judgment, protecting the user or innocent bystanders from the user’s negligence is a good thing. Some of you obviously disagree.

I have been an avid hunter, shooter and gun collector for over 40 years. When it comes to hunting, I would never hunt with anyone who did not have a manual safety on his gun and keep it engaged until he is ready to shoot. Too many things can happen that can lead to unintentional discharge, such as dropping the gun, snagging something on the trigger, tripping and inadvertently squeezing the trigger, to name a few. Would anyone in their right mind dispute the
the benefit of having a manual safety on a hunting rifle or shotgun? As I see it, there is no downside whatsoever ------ only benefits. You keep the safety on until you are ready to shoot. As you raise the weapon to your shoulder, the safety is clicked-off, you fire the weapon, and you lower the weapon the safety is clicked-on. No lost time. And then you train yourself to constantly check the safety while your in the field.

I know that some of you would like to distinguish long arms from sidearms when it comes to the benefits of a manual safety, but I fail to see a difference. (NOTE: It is not my opinion that revolvers need a manual safety as they are substantially different from semi-automatic pistols and it is very difficult to inadvertently discharge a revolver in double-action mode with a long, hard 10-12 lb. trigger pull.) Once the pistol is out of the holster, you can drop it, snag something on the trigger or inadvertently touch the trigger, just like in the field. The risks of unintentional discharge are the same as with long arms, and the benefits of a manual safety are likewise the same. Moreover, the idea that there is some impediment to operating a pistol with a manual safety because you have to remember to engage/disengage it is “hogwash.” It’s all a matter of training and familiarity with your pistol. Disengaging the manual safety as you are raising the pistol to firing position is a matter of practice which becomes second nature. As many of you have said, there is no substitute for training. In my judgment, if you can not learn to operate a manual safety, then you should seriously question whether you should be using a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense. It’s not rocket science.

I appreciate many aspects of the Glock pistol (I happen to own one). I think they are very rugged and reliable, and shoot well. I think they are excellent combat sidearms in the hands of a highly trained expert. Having said that, I believe they are unsafe for the average user (which includes many LEO’s), because they are they lack a manual safety. Telling the user to rely on his finger is cop-out. I am all in favor of improvements in firearm design that make the weapon more effective, but not at the expense of safety. Glock’s elimination of the manual safety, in my opinion, is a step in the wrong direction.

Most of you will agree that the Glock pistol was designed as a military sidearm for the Austrian Army. Frankly, when it comes to military weapons/technology, I prefer to rely on American ingenuity and know-how. But perhaps someone out there can answer this question for me: Why does the U.S. military demand manual safeties on all of its standard issue long arms and sidearms?

Very well written and I also would not hunt with people without safeties on their rifles, shotguns, or pistols in the fields or woods. As for as self defense, I carried a G26 for a year, sold it and bought a CZ PO1 which is a better pistol for me, and now I also carry a G17 every once in a while and I carry it with a round in the chamber, as I do with all pistols with my carry permit.

 

[roaddog28]

When someone mentions to compare the Glock to a double action revolver, that is really dumb. There is a lot of difference between the two with trigger pulls,

This statement is true. A Glock is not a true DAO pistol. There are true DAO pistols like double actions revolvers. Trigger pulls are 8 to 12 lbs. Example a S&W Sigma. Not many people like the Sigma and others because of the trigger design but I consider them to be the safest semi-autos.

Not necessarily. There are DA revolvers with lighter triggers. And there are Glocks with heavier triggers. There is enough overlap to make a comparison valid. And more important is the fact the manual of arms is the same.

I agree but I will point out that any gun can be modified to have a lighter or heavier trigger. Sometimes this can make the gun less safe. I don't modify any of my guns. I stick to the design that was built into them by the gunmaker. With that said, nothing beats good safe gun handling practices. Better to learn them, practice them and be aware that a gun is loaded all the time.

Howard

 

[gym]

I just want to clear up a few things. As much as I tend to favor the Glock Pistol, I agree that it should probablly not be the "first" pistol a new shooter purchases. I was already carrying for around 22 years when I got my first one in the early 90's, so it was easier to adapt to for me as I was already used to carrying auto pistols, and revolvers for many years. When I first saw it I thought it was the ugliest pistol I ever saw. Much like a porshe till you drive it. My dog, a Sharpai" was the same thing, Ugly becomes pretty, sometimes" "with the exception of woman". But I agree that giving a glock to a new shooter who is not trully a gun interested person and just wants to say they have a glock is a bad idea.
Sometimes I forget that there are people who read these posts and take them out of context, I talk here as I would to a group of my friends, and neglect to take into account that there are some, "not that many" new shooters here who can be influenced to possiblly make a bad decision based on their knowledge, or lack there of, and time spent around guns in general, I just wanted to put that out there so I don't sound like a preacher.

 

[jjboogie]

The ONLY thing I don't like about Glocks is their thickness. Then again if I got rid of my love handles I could probably hide them much easier.

I have a 3rd Generation Glock that I bought brand new several years ago and it has never malfunctioned once.

They are AMAZING guns.

 

[txhoghunter]

Ok here is my 2 cents,
Roughly a year ago on my farm I came face to face with an aggressive pit bull. As I ALWAYS do, I had my Glock 19 on my hip (open carry with Blackhawk Serpa while on the farm). After yelling at the dog and it refusing to leave, I drew and prepared to fire a round at the dog's feet to try to scare it off. My G19 had never failed to fire or to properly eject a spent cartridge after 600+ rounds and I do clean it very often, however when I pulled the trigger all that I heard was a *click*. I still do not know what happened, but the primer was not hit hard enough to ignite. A quick tap to the mag, a rack of the slide, and 4 rounds later, the dog was put down. Again, this was the only time that this gun has had any sort of malfunction, but as far as I'm concerned, that was one too many.

Dangerous? No these weapons are a great tool if you can properly handle a 'safe-action' pistol and you take the necessary time to train with it (as with any weapon).

I am by no means anti-glock, but I am a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" type of person, so my EDC is now a Sig

 

[DoctorOfLight]

So you just shot this dog for no reason?

You don't happen to live under a bridge do you?

 

[txhoghunter]

No this dog was shot for being an aggressive (wild) dog that is part of a pack that attacked a father and his two young daughters on my property, the dog was fortunate that I even considered firing a warning shot. Too bad for him as I said, the round failed to fire.

Now before you criticize without knowing circumstances how about you ask first.

 

[five.five-six]

there is a reason it's called "glock leg"

 

[12131]

By txhoghunter:
Ok here is my 2 cents,
Roughly a year ago on my farm I came face to face with an aggressive pit bull. As I ALWAYS do, I had my Glock 19 on my hip (open carry with Blackhawk Serpa while on the farm). After yelling at the dog and it refusing to leave, I drew and prepared to fire a round at the dog's feet to try to scare it off. My G19 had never failed to fire or to properly eject a spent cartridge after 600+ rounds and I do clean it very often, however when I pulled the trigger all that I heard was a *click*. I still do not know what happened, but the primer was not hit hard enough to ignite. A quick tap to the mag, a rack of the slide, and 4 rounds later, the dog was put down. Again, this was the only time that this gun has had any sort of malfunction, but as far as I'm concerned, that was one too many.

Dangerous? No these weapons are a great tool if you can properly handle a 'safe-action' pistol and you take the necessary time to train with it (as with any weapon).

I am by no means anti-glock, but I am a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" type of person, so my EDC is now a Sig

By your own admission, you still do not know what happened. So, you blamed the G19? Could it have been a bad round? Sounds more likely than not. What if your EDC Sig gives you a *click* the next time? Will you be looking for another brand? Help me understand here. Thanks.

 

[txhoghunter]

No, I do not know what caused the FTF. And I am not placing blame on the gun, because as you said, it was more than likely a faulty round. However, I am not willing to have it happen again with the same weapon. The fact that I now carry a Sig is due to other reasons as well. For one I wanted a little more punch than the 9mm, I asked around, and fired several different brands (including other Glocks), and just liked the feel of a Sig 220 the most. Should I get another *click*, I honestly cannot tell you what I would do. I would not hesitate to buy another Glock, but I felt as if this Gen. 1 G19 was getting a little worn after being on my hip for all these years.

Again, the Glock is a very good and proven weapon, I was just letting the OP know of my experience with a FTF.

 

[GLOOB]

Oil in the striker channel. Mystery solved.

Anyways, if you knew it was a feral pit bull and it was showing aggression on your property, why even consider a warning shot? They are known to be dangerous and can do a lot of damage, even to an able bodied adult.

One of my neighbors had a pit bull. One day they were outside with it off the leash, and he ran over to me. I've never been scared of a dog, before, even ones that bark and growl. And yet I was scared stiff of this dog that just wanted to play. Holy moly, these dogs are over a hundred pounds, and half of that is jaws and teeth. When they're jumping up and panting in your face, it's like looking into a bear trap. There's room for a 20 pound turkey in there. I'd actually have preferred if he was standing off and growling.

But can someone explain to me why people feel the need to shoot feral cats?

 

[Erik]

"Are Glocks More Prone To Misfire?"

No.

 

[txhoghunter]

GLOOB the only reason I considered a warning shot is because I was comfortable with a 35 or so yard distance b/w the two of us to give it one last chance. However, other feral dogs have been closer and did not get the luxury of a warning shot.
And yes, pit bulls are scary as all get out and I will never look at one without having a little fear, even if it is a "pet".

 

[jhallrv4]

You know what? When YOU are the one in range of the aggressive feral pit-bull, you have cause to question. deleted -- <Sam>

My wife was attacked by a loose dog in our neighborhood while walking, fortunately for the cur, it was before she started carrying.

My OPINION only, deal with it.

Jeff

 

[txhoghunter]

jhall are you talking to me or GLOOB?

 

[DoctorOfLight]

Maybe he's talking to me, I don't know. I've never "admitted" to having a perfectly safe computer, thought. Hell this thing could electrocute me at any moment!

I like pie.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, we've gone from Glocks to Pit Bulls, and insulting each other over Pit Bulls.

Guess there's not much else to say on the original topic...