Top police gun prone to accidental firing

[jc2]

I thought you were asking a question. In the scenario you described, a Glock is essentially like a cocked Beretta 92. While, yes, you have to pull the trigger in order for the round to fire there are some key differences in how far you have to pull the and hard you have to pull the trigger.

 

[Topgun]

Remove DISABILITY compensation

and you'll never see another accidental cop shooting.

 

[Coult D]

With the poupularity of Glock in L.E. in addition to the cheap cost factor add this reason: A New York judge ruled that the NYPD testing policy for
recruits was unduly biased for using the following test. " Dry
fire a revolver 18 times double action in X amount seconds"

The court found this biased because many females did not have sufficent hand strength to pass the test. So the NYPD adopts the Glock as 1 of 3 new auto sidearms to stem charges of unfair hiring practices. I am not saying this was the only reason the Glock was adopted.

Prior to going to autos the NYPD had made a DAO policy with its revolvers to prevent N/D A/D this was considered an important step to prevent lawsuits from victims claiming injury due to "officer error" by cocking revolvers. But now we have a sidearm with a short stroke trigger being used in highly stressfull situations.

No matter how many times the "keep the finger off the trigger" mantra is used some officers are going to disregard it on gun jobs. That simple fact makes the Glock dangerous as a general duty weapon.

Is it 100% officer error with the Glock absolutely. This does not prevent lawsuits against the PD for wrongful death/injury. The trend in revolvers just prior to the "LE must have auto craze" was DAO. Foward thinking Police admististrations felt it was negligent to have officers with the temptation to cock revolvers, hence DAO revolvers .

The auto craze hits the BATF rules the Glock to be A DOUBLE ACTION automatic and Miami PD adopt it for the above reason, very soon after hitting the market. Coupled with the below competative bid pricing,easy qualification scores,gender friendly(no long trigger pull) and lightweight compact size make Glock millions of dollars in sales.

BUT it does not change the fact that thousand of officers are carrying a sidearm that will discharge with a mere 1/4 inch of travel.

Using the assumption that officers WILL make the mistake of "placing finger on trigger" revolvers were mechanically altered to prevent SA. Now with the above assumption still in place Glocks are carried without much thought to this. ANYBODY CARE TO GUESS WHY?

 

[Sleuth]

Esay! Bureaucratic Inertia. Having spent all that $$$$, the administrators do not want to admit that they may have made a mistake! After all, if they were wrong about that, they could be wrong about something else!

 

[355sigfan]

No matter how many times the "keep the finger off the trigger" mantra is used some officers are going to disregard it on gun jobs. That simple fact makes the Gock dangerous as a general duty weapon.
END

BS According your logic we should make the guns unable to fire at all. Of course its dangerious its a gun. Guns are supposed to fire when you pull the trigger. Some officers may break safety rules only if the training is lacking. Those same officers would also break safety rules with other guns. There are ND's logged with many long trigger dao style guns. Clearly changing guns is not the answer but rather stressing safe gunhandling. The glocks trigger allows officers to hit targets easier under stress. So it is a dangerious firearm. For the criminals on the other end. Anyone who can't keep their finger off the trigger should not be carrying a weapon period.
Pat

 

[Mike Kerr]

Lets see. I believe the article said that Glock's did a good job of not discharging when dropped.

I believe a holster solves the problem of accidental pull of the trigger when carried in trousers, pocket, purse, satchel or bag.

I believe increased training of police recruits will help keep "their finger off the trigger".

I know mandatory increased range hours will help existing officers to handle their firearms in the same way as the new "better" trained recruits.

I Know I should increase my support of the NRA in its legislative fund raising efforts. Articles such as this which have elements of truth - but not the whole truth. Apparently expert opinions - which are only surface deep on close inspection. etc. These are tougher to combat than a simple gun grabing argument.

Somehow over the last several decades we have become more concerned as a society with "rules to protect the amazingly stupid or inept from themselves rather than placing the blame where it really belongs- with that individual".

At least that is my spin on it.

regards.

 

[Coult D]

355sigfan Said

According your logic we should make the guns unable to fire at all.

Clearly this this would make the whole point of this topic moot.

In a nutshell I was saying the Glock has less room for officer error than other designs.

355sigfan Said

Some officers may break safety rules only if the training is lacking.

Patently false, I would say the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks particularly in "cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters {I.E. flailing of arms or body} deadly force would not yet be warranted and N/D occur

.355sigfan
Said

So it is a dangerious firearm. For the criminals on the other end

I would be less concerned with a suspect's N/D lawsuit but when an N/D occurs its usually the INNOCENT BYSTANDER OR OFFFICERS N/D lawsuit that gets the big money

355sigfan
Said

Anyone who can't keep their finger off the trigger should not be carrying a weapon period.

Well mistakes and accidents will happen. Its the job of the brass to be mindful of how easy a slip of the finger can occur when choosing a sidearm.
Revolvers, DAO, DA/SA autos all have Neg. discharges it the "safe action" Glock that combines the worst features Light trigger pull-short stroke- no external safety of the above types.

 

[buzz_knox]

Hmm...I don't hear of anyone with "1911 leg" or anything like that. I wonder why?

I've heard of the "Government Groove." Close enough?

 

[Sleuth]

Coult D, the last I heard, in service training for NYPD was one day a year. Has this changed? I hardly consider that enough for a department with so many demands on it. We qualified 4 times a year, qual course plus mandated and required additional training.

As an experienced trainer (over 5,000 officers, none lost to date), I cannot think of one day a year as "highly trained".

 

[Boats]

Thee Bad One wrote:

The Glock is a fine firearm and one of the very few "Combat Pistols" available. What is a "Combat Pistol"? It's one where all you have to do to put it into action is pull the trigger. Presented with a threat? Draw, aim, pull trigger, BANG.

Thanks for that one. My "non-combatant" 1911s and I had a hearty laugh over their reclassification as unworthy of combat.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

GLOCK........................The new evil black plastic assault weapon !
I still have trouble with the trigger safety having any value whatsoever. A finger or damn near anything inside the trigger guard will cause a negligent discharge.

 

[Mike Kerr]

Thanks Sleuth,

quote:

Coult D, the last I heard, in service training for NYPD was one day a year. Has this changed? I hardly consider that enough for a department with so many demands on it. We qualified 4 times a year, qual course plus mandated and required additional training.

As an experienced trainer (over 5,000 officers, none lost to date), I cannot think of one day a year as "highly trained".



Sleuth thank you for your input. BTW within the last year I have had phone conversations with 2 LEO's in Yonkers, and Flushing Meadows. I was told they were on 1 day per year mandatory training. I have found these LEO's good sources for guns which were "carried often and shot little" Don't know the full story nationwide but I know from local fellow IDPA and IPSC shooters who are LEO's that a majority of their department members really don't care to shoot or train at the range that much (PPC shooters excluded). It is a pity.

regards,

 

[355sigfan]

Patently false, I would say the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks
END

That patently false. They don't have good training. Just because they are the nations largest police force does not mean they are the best trained. Thier ND rate and low hit ratio in actual gun fights indicates they are trained very poorly.

SNIP
cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters
END

This is also poor training. You should not be covering someone with your muzzle unless your about ready to shoot them. All commands and covering of suspect should be done with the pistol in a guard position the muzzle pointed at the ground.
Pat

 

[pwrtool45]

At the heart of the matter I'd say there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a Glock. The people that engage in unsafe practices that result in Glock ADs are going to be the same people that result in S&W 3rd gen DAO ADs and Beretta 92D ADs. (That's five Ds for five hundred dollars, would you care to solve the puzzle?) If you're at-risk with a Glock moving to a Beretta or Sig won't fix the problem, the set of problems will simply change (e.g., cocking the hammer to bypas the DA shot, "taking the slack out" of the DA pull, etc.) and have the same results (e.g., holsters inadvertantly being modified in the field to open-bottom, Beretta leg becoming a noun, etc.).

Now remember that people (cops and non-cops) were shooting holes in their legs with S&W models 10s back in the day as well. I would be willing to bet it was less frequent because of all-around better gunhandling skills than the heavier trigger.

 

[happyguy]

Lot's of stuff happens that we don't plan on. Things happen that we haven't trained for yet. You can do everything 100% right and very bad things can still happen to you. It's just the way things are. The highly trained good guy doesn't always win.

In my not so humble opinion, Gaston Glock is guilty of negligence for not putting a manual safety on his pistols and the departments that have accidental/negligent/unintentional discharges which injure someone should be civily liable. So should the individual approving authority that approved the purchase. And the training officer that provided the poor training.

As far as the trigger safety goes, I agree with Jeff Cooper. Putting a safety on the trigger is like writing the combination on the safe door.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[355sigfan]

In my not so humble opinion, Gaston Glock is guilty of negligence for not putting a manual safety on his pistols and the departments
END

The pistol does not need it. And you should always plan on having your finger off the trigger when your not firing. In this day and age were quick to blame others for our own mistakes. People say its not my fault i broke the law its societys, or its this or its that. God dammit take responsibility for your own actions. Its not glocks fault if an idiot keeps his finger on the trigger while covering a suspect and kills them violating 2 safety rules. Sorry but thats a weak excuse. Heck what do we need voice command guns that will not let you fire without a password being given prior to every shot. ND's occure with the same type of people no matter what the weapon.
Pat

 

[cigarman]

Take a look here and you may be surprised at which pistols fail the drop-fire test...


http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/pistolsbulletin2000.pdf

 

[Coult D]

Coult D said
the NYPD has a pretty good training and they have a very high rate of N/D with Glocks particularly in "cuffing while covering" situations where unarmed subjects resists in close quarters {I.E. flailing of arms or body} deadly force would not yet be warranted and N/D occurs

355sigfan reply
This is also poor training. You should not be covering someone with your muzzle unless your about ready to shoot them. All commands and covering of suspect should be done with the pistol in a guard position the muzzle pointed at the ground.

Standard textbook procedure is to holster or muzzle safe sidearm thats a given. I think me and {and poster happyguy} are saying in actual contact situations arise that negate the rulebook.

The "poor training" that is stated as the problem can not be resolved because the NYPD meet or exceed state training regs. This in turn is based on a national standard. The training they recieve would at be least deemed average training of Police Officers nationally.

With the largest PD in the nation they are a microcasm of what happens nationally concerning taking suspects at gunpoint. Situational review is better because all reports are made through one agency.

 

[355sigfan]

think me and {and poster happyguy} are saying in actual contact situations arise that negate the rulebook.
END

I have been in a few situations but there is never a reason to negate the 4 safety rules. Thats like saying its not ok to rape people but sometimes things happen and rules get broken. BS. I am not buying it. If people can't handle the rules they should be trained until they can or let go.
Pat

 

[Coult D]

I think 355sigfan is misinterpting that fact that while the Ofiicer should never violate basic safety rules its the actions of the SUSPECT not the Officer that causes the muzzle sweep, dropping of sidearm, suspect pushing you or another in the direction of your sidearm etc.. that causes the N/D.
While its the action of the suspect that causes the N/D Its where the officers bullet goes that juries award damages even with midigating circumstances. Its a matter of the PD has the liability insurance and the suspect has no such worry.

The whole analogy to rape is pointless. Its the action of the 2ND party that causes the N/D. The 2ND party does not cause you to rape someone.

I think most would agree situational control is somtimes lost by officers. How quickly we can recover and the damages as a result, are the aftermath.

 

[RON in PA]

As I was reading the article it seemed to me that I had read something like this before and the more that I think about it the article is very much like one that appeared a year or two ago about the DC police. Could be wrong, but aside from the many stupidities of the article is this an example of journalistic plagerism?

By the way 50 lawsuits from all the Glocks in service, that's pretty low per centage wise and yes , one is one too many. What's the ND rate of SIGS and other decockers (no safety), revolvers (no safety) and of traditional DA/SA pistols that are often carried with safety off. The author needs to state the ND rate per pistol of all types before he goes off on his crusade, but then he's only a journalist.

 

[355sigfan]

Officer that causes the muzzle sweep, dropping of sidearm, suspect pushing you or another in the direction of your sidearm etc.. that causes the N/D.
END

Sorry still not buying what your selling. IN the above situation the glock will still not fire unless the shooter also has his finger on the trigger when it should not be. If Glocks are dropped they will not fire. They are about the most drop safe gun out there.
Pat

 

[happyguy]

355SIGFAN,

Try this sometime. Hold your glock with your finger outside the triggerguard. Next let the biggest meanest officer in your deparment (yourself not included) thump you a good one upside the head. When you wake up I'm sure you'll be able to say that your finger never was on the trigger and that you kept the muzzle under control even while you were losing consiousness.

Not all unintentional discharges are the result of negligence.

Have you ever been a patrol officer?


Regards,
Happyguy

 

[buzz_knox]

Try this sometime. Hold your glock with your finger outside the triggerguard. Next let the biggest meanest officer in your deparment (yourself not included) thump you a good one upside the head. When you wake up I'm sure you'll be able to say that your finger never was on the trigger and that you kept the muzzle under control even while you were losing consiousness.

Except those aren't the facts giving rise to the lawsuits. In Knoxville, one of the first lawsuits arose from a cop chasing a suspect. He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her. Wouldn't have happened if he hadn't violated the rules.

The incidents involving shootings during cuffing came from cops holding the Glock with fingers on the trigger. When the cuff hand closed, the other one closed reflexively, causing a negligent discharge.

 

[Coult D]

The last two post are getting to the crux of the problem with the Glock.

Taking all other contributing factors out of the equation the Glock is different in this way from the DAO, DA/SA and even SA with safety applied.
The reflexive grip which happens when one hand closes is less forgivening with the Glock. Your gunhand curls tighter around the grip to protect gun from whatever is happening .(examples cited in above posts) The trigger finger of course should stay out of the trigger guard. But when it does not it has no where to go in the Glocks trigger guard except on the trigger. DAO,DA/SA designs (sometimes allow) the trigger finger can slip behind the trigger to stabilize the gun better during the struggle. Even SA with saftey provide a slim margin that an N/D will not occur.

Ofcourse no officer is taught to protect a sidearm that way because it breaks the taboo of no finger in the trigger guard rule..

Does the above scenerio happen in real life yes. Its all a crapshoot anyway at that point. Its a small and often overlooked distinction that allow some designs to be better than the Glock.