I'm prejudiced---I don't like Glocks

[23Glock]

@dogrunner
Look, I respect your service as a LEO immensely, but as Haranguer said, every instance mentioned was negligence on the part of the person holding the weapon.
I challenge anyone to produce an example of a Glock, in good working order, that has had an “accidental” discharge and I guarantee it can be demonstrated that the discharge was due to operator error (negligence). I’m not a pro-Glocker – just a realist. Yes I own one, but I own others as well and treat them all NO differently simply because they have different safety mechanisms. Those that do are a negligent discharge waiting to happen.
A Glock in and of itself is not dangerous – the person holding it is, cliche as that sounds.

 

[PhillyGlocker]

I'm glad there are people who don't like Glocks. It keep Glocks available to purchase for those of us who absolutely love them!

 

[elktrout]

The only Glock I ever owned, a G26, would not feed certain hollow point factory ammo from the major makers. The gunsmith at the shop where I bought it tried several times to remedy the problem and finally gave up. His answer was that some Glocks are ammo sensitive.

This was contrary to their reputation at that point in time. I eventually traded the gun on an H&K USP 40 which has digested every ammo make and type I can throw into it.

I likely got a bad one, but it soured me on Glocks. Nevertheless, the posts about safe handling vs. a mechanical safety are dead on. After all, it is a tool and must be operated properly.

 

[TRGRHPY]

Dogrunner claims that Glocks are inherently dangerous.

Anti's claim that all handguns are dangerous....oddly, for the same reason that Dogrunner is claiming.


Glock triggers pull themselves...cool.:banghead:


Armedbear:

Why not walk around with a 1911 cocked and unlocked, or a 686 with the hammer cocked? If you follow the four rules, there's nothing to worry about, right?

That comparison is absurd since the trigger pulls are completely different. My LCP doesn't have a safety either, are you going to convince us that those are bad as well?

The rest of your rant just goes against any and all rational thought with regards to handling firearms and handguns in particular.

 

[jakk280rem]

Yes, I have to admit it, I just don't like Glocks.

neither do i. for completly different reasons. i don't like the way it spits brass in my face, and i dont like the mediocre accuracy. i don't have extensive experience with glocks, but have shot a few.

as to your question about an add on safety, don't bother. if you are uncomfortable with a gun that has no safety, pick a different gun. if you dont like glocks, don't try to make it something its not. there are a lot of other companies that make pistols that are every bit as reliable, accurate and scary looking as a glock, and some of them even have safeties. some are even ambidexterous. i am sure any one of them would be more than happy to sell you a new gun.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

To the OP, that's not prejudice. That's postjudice. You've already considered them.

While I can't say I don't like Glocks, I have to admit, there are pistols I like more.

 

[CPshooter]

I recently sold all my Glocks in favor of H&Ks for my polymer needs. The unsafe design of the Glock is one of many reasons I gave them up.

First, I agree that keeping your finger off the trigger unless you intend to shoot is the best way to prevent a ND.

Second, I don't like manual safeties on my concealed carry gun, but the Glock's design is still too unsafe for me. There is no external hammer to keep your eye on when holstering your weapon. I was just too nervous every time I had to holster my Glocks. Once the trigger starts to disappear in the leather, I freak out because there's nothing you can do except hope that nothing snags the trigger. The trigger safety is a joke. It practically does nothing.

I like my LEM-equipped H&K. I have a light DA trigger w/ a longer take-up and a short reset, but most importantly I can keep my thumb over the hammer when holstering the gun to prevent the hammer from coming back in the unlikely event that something did happen to snag the trigger.

jakk- I agree about not adding a manual safety to a Glock and just picking something else. Why make something work for you when there are so many other options that already work? I've owned 3 Glocks. They aren't as great as some people make them out to be.

 

[JohnKSa]

All of which really gets me to why I'm starting this thread. There is an "after market" safety available for the Glock. It's a gunsmith job to install it, it goes on the slide. It's a thumb type safety lever that works like the safeties on many other autos. It's a gunsmith job to install it. I wonder if any of you guys have seen one? I won't attempt to argue with those of you who say all you have to do is "be careful." But, let's face it, no one plans to have an "accident"--accidents are things that happen no matter how professional and careful you are.

Ok, that's your point of view.

Let's see what the late Col. Jeff Cooper had to say on the topic:

Combat Handguns August 2008 edition
Gunsite Gossip Column
A Jeff Cooper Retrospective
Excerpts from the 1992 Volume 12 ‘Gunsite Gargantuan Gossip!’

The notion that one can make machinery safe or unsafe by mechanical ingenuity is increasingly depressing. As we insist here at the school, safety does not lie in gadgetry, but rather in the mind of the user. One cannot make a “safe” gun. One can certainly make a “safe” shooter. But the unenlightened refuse to recognize this, and go right on trying to regulate the construction of machinery about which they know nothing. Apparently it is an elemental characteristic of the Age of the Common Man to attempt to save the stupid from themselves. Obviously this cannot be done, either by education or by legislation. Personally, we do not even think it should be done, as we rather tend to the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The fact that it cannot be done, however, will not deter the do-gooders. The urge to “do something”, even if it makes no sense, seems unavoidable in a certain kind of nitwit.

 

[CPshooter]

One cannot make a “safe” gun. One can certainly make a “safe” shooter.

Sorry, but the late Jeff Cooper must not have recognized the fact that the human body is nothing more than a super-complex biological machine with a much higher probability of failure (physical or mental) than any piece of machinery or gadgetry.

Unfortunately, emotion is a factor that affects every human being. Accidents do happen and if someone insists on owning a Glock, but would feel more comfortable putting a manual safety on it then so be it. If a small mechanical alteration can positively affect a person's psychology, then I'm cool with that. Especially if that person is carrying a gun around me.

Do I think it makes sense? Only if you absolutely insist on owning a Glock, but want a manual safety.

I wasn't going to go that route, so I did what made more sense to me and I sold my Glocks in favor of H&Ks.

 

[JohnKSa]

...the human body is nothing more than a super-complex biological machine with a much higher probability of failure (physical or mental) than any piece of machinery or gadgetry.

So every piece of machinery or gadgetry ever made has a lower probability of failure than the human body? That's a pretty sweeping claim...

On the other hand, it does shine some light on why you take the position you do.

Accidents do happen and if someone insists on owning a Glock, but would feel more comfortable putting a manual safety on it then so be it. If a small mechanical alteration can positively affect a person's psychology, then I'm cool with that. Especially if that person is carrying a gun around me.

So if it makes the owner feel more comfortable then it must be safer (at least it makes you feel safer if they're carrying around you).

I guess that's sort of the "If you're OK then I'm OK" theory of gun safety.

 

[CPshooter]

So every piece of machinery or gadgetry ever made has a lower probability of failure than the human body? That's a pretty sweeping claim...

Considering the human body eventually dies, I'd consider that a 100% failure rate

Just kidding..

But obviously not every piece of machinery is built to the standards of those that a quality firearm, or a quality piece of "ingenuity" is built on. To put it simply, what I was trying to say is that Jeff Cooper's words shouldn't be taken as gospel in this situation.

In my honest opinion, adding a manual safety to a Glock totally makes the design "safer." Again, I would personally never do it when I can just buy another gun, but if you read what I had to say about holstering my Glocks a few posts above you will see the obvious safety advantage a manual safety would, in fact, add to the Glock. I don't care if you are the most careful person in the world. There is nothing you can do to prevent an AD from occurring with a chambered Glock once that trigger leaves your sight. In this case, it would NOT be considered a ND, because there are only so many steps a "careful" person can take before you become redundant or straight-up OCD.

Going back to a design like the H&K LEM trigger... If you managed to discharge a LEM-equipped gun while holstering, then I'd call it a ND because you had every opportunity to become aware of that hammer coming back while you holstered it. Glocks just don't give you this opportunity. They are more prone to ADs than most other guns simply because of the design. You just can't argue this.

 

[ExtremeSquared]

I still can't for the life of me figure out why glock owners are so militant about aftermarket safeties.
"If you want a gun with a safety, buy a gun with a safety"
Why not just buy a glock, which is a great design, and add a safety? Is there some sort of club people are not invited to if they add one?

 

[legion3]

Mention Glock and they will come.

I recently sold all my Glocks in favor of H&Ks for my polymer needs. The unsafe design of the Glock is one of many reasons I gave them up.

Why not just buy a glock, which is a great design, and add a safety?

I still can't for the life of me figure out why glock owners are so militant about aftermarket safeties.

I don't like manual safeties on my concealed carry gun, but the Glock's design is still too unsafe for me. There is no external hammer to keep your eye on when holstering your weapon. I was just too nervous every time I had to holster my Glocks. Once the trigger starts to disappear in the leather, I freak out because there's nothing you can do except hope that nothing snags the trigger. The trigger safety is a joke. It practically does nothing.

i don't like the way it spits brass in my face, and i dont like the mediocre accuracy. i don't have extensive experience with glocks, but have shot a few.

 

[23Glock]

You just can't argue this.

I sure can.
What kind of holster were you putting a Glock in that you thought might snag the trigger and set it off? If that’s you’re argument, it could happen to almost any weapon, if you forgot to engage your manual safeties and had a cheap holster for. A proper holster, either molded kydek, or molded leather designed for the gun is not going to snag your trigger…
The point is that a Glock will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. PERIOD. While I will concede it is possible for something other than your finger to pull the trigger, I guarantee you have control over that something. And just because the trigger leaves your sight, doesn’t mean you stop being cognizant of it. What happens if you forget to click on your external safety? You’ve already built the motor reflex that you don’t need to care about the trigger when it leaves your sight because you’re relying on the external safety to “protect” you. Bad, bad, bad discipline….
Now, this may take the thread in a different direction, but here is my opinion on holstering technique. This is just my opinion, but if you’re staring at the hammer while you’re holstering, you may become a statistic because your situational awareness is not where it should be. You should be holstering while scanning your surroundings, not staring at your weapon. True, you’re not going to do this while loading up in the morning at home, but you’re building a bad motor reflex asking the hammer to give you feedback on the weapon’s perceived safety.
Again, this all goes back to people needing some external stimulus (safeties, hammer movement, etc) to lull them into a false sense that their weapon is “safe” – and when the weapon goes off they call it an “accident”. When in reality the weapon’s safety is derived from proper training, attention to technique, knowledge of the weapon, and respect for the Four Rules. I.e. The weapon’s safety lies within you. If it didn't, more LEOs would be shooting themselves every day and Glock market share would plummet as they looked for a "safer" weapon.
I’m not being militant about Glocks, it’s just my fundamental philosophy that applies to all weapons.

 

[KenW.]

Glocks are proven, reliable weapons.
Anyone can be trained to operate one effectively.
They are "nearly" idiot-proof.(I say "nearly" because there's always that "one guy"...)
You can use and abuse one and it will still work.
Glocks thrive on neglect.
You don't need to be a "gun guy" to maintain one.

That being said; I prefer my 1911s and XD.

Maybe if there were a seperate manually-operated safety device (other than one built in to the "bang switch") I would be more comfortable. Having a weapon that can be fired by a jacket's drawstring upon holstering is scary to me. It took a while for me to get accustomed with my XD too.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

They just need a nickel-plated glock...

 

[legion3]

Having a weapon that can be fired by a jacket's drawstring upon holstering is scary to me.

OMG!!!

 

[jocko]

siderlock.com

for the best glock safety in the world, required no smithing either,just drops right in. Still works perfectly withthe GSA system. You won't bump it on or bump it off, and it's top quality to..

 

[hankdatank1362]

That's why I love my SIGs so much.

Tougher than GLOCK, and just as reliable. That's not an opinion, that's fact, backed up by many different test by different LEO/MIL departments. The SIG always finished at the top of the pile (sometimes shared, like with HK in the DHD trials); whether or not the department can afford to purchase enough SIGs to go around is a different story.)

Exposed hammer, so when I cram it in my holster in a hurry, I can keep my thumb on the hammer to make sure it's not making any rearward travel because something in the holster (piece of clothing, debris, anything) is actuating the trigger. (Personal preference)

DA/SA... heavy first pull if needed on the fly (CCW-related, like you're being mugged.) Or cock it and go SA for a crisp, light trigger pull thats on par with a nice Smith revolver in SA. (personal preference; some people like a consistent trigger pull, being the same with every shot)

Much better looking and better ergos than GLOCK (completely subjective, I know)

Do I have a point?

Not really. To each their own.

 

[Walkalong]

Neither do I, it's OK.

 

[Matrix187]

I like CZs and SIGs more than glocks. Glocks work good though... but what I hate is how they fit in my hand.

 

[Zak Smith]

This is a tedious topic because it has been covered so exhaustively, so many times, and often poorly. However, one issue that has not yet been mentioned explicitly in this thread is what pistols "succeed" at high-volume pistols classes. Besides reliability (which is of critical importance), one ought to consider how successfully people can operate the weapon in question. It is my experience - with very few exceptions - that during "fighting" pistol classes, people can more effectively operate Glocks than most other designs, and that Glocks are on average more reliable than other designs.

Now I have run 1911's in 2000+-round pistol classes successfully; however, this is not the typical experience.

ETA: I hear all the time, generally from new or inexperienced shooters, that gun brand X doesn't "fit" their hand or that they do not "like" a handgun for whatever reason. In terms of operating the pistol effectively, "fit" and "like" are mostly useless concepts, IMO. The tool is either effective and efficient (ie, D, V, C) or it is ineffective. Sometimes "fit" means that controls cannot be effectively operated; however, the word "fit" brings to mind a pair of shoes. That is not it at all. The mechanics of holding a pistol, aligning the sights, and pressing the trigger are elementary.

-z

 

[xxxstarmaniac]

Dogrunner,

I laughed so hard I pissed myself reading about your personal experiences. I would have left that department immediately in favor of a location where a persons awareness and safety was a factor of employment.

I don't care what gun is being discussed, STUPID IS STUPID!

I feel like I live on the edge, and yet even bungie jumping off a bridge with a rope thats too long seems like it makes more sense to me than cleaning a gun that I left loaded with a round in the chamber. They don't teach you to check the chamber with a FINGER to make sure it's not loaded? LEO have to do that here whether it's a sig, glock or beretta.

Evidently safety should have been first and foremost; always treat the gun like it's LOADED!

All the whining about glocks here is funny. Don't buy one if you don't like it! But having an exposed hammer catch on a seatbelt on a duty weapon is something that must be pretty rare.

If you don't FEEL safe, you aren't safe.

If I think glocks or sigs or hks suck, I would be interested in something else, and satisfied with another firearm that <GASP> someone else might not like!

Everything I own is a POS. Why? Because someone always has something better, even if it's the same thing.

 

[HoosierQ]

I think this got a little out of hand but I am not a moderator.

I am wrestling with some of these issues right now. All three of my Semi-Autos are striker fired. Only one has a safety. My EDC gun is a 642 DAO Revolver but I also carry my M&P 9c...no safety.

It is disconcerting to know that you don't have a safety.

I would boild this whole thread down differently than maybe others...simply put...Hammers vs Strikers. There are days when I wonder if all my autos should be hammer guns with decockers. But...since some of the very best guns in the world are striker fired guns lacking manual safeties (Glock, S&W M&Ps most of them)) one mitigates risk. Of course there are great hammer guns as well (Beretta, H&K, and Sig to name only a few).

Bashing a gun like the Glock serves no purpose. I have had mine since 1991 without a single accidental/negligent discharge.

Thinking about safety is always a good thing. If I could take all three of my striker guns and trade them, dollar for dollar for new hammers guns, I just might...or I might not. Since that is not going to happen...I am sitting tight and being careful.

 

[phish]

Anyone who thinks a glock is unsafe is just dumb and doesn't know how to handle it properly.

PS...Yes, pulling the trigger on a loaded glock will cause it to go off. If you don't pull the trigger, it won't go off. I know it's difficult to understand, but that's how it was designed.