since9
Campaign Veteran
Glock 23. Why is it that Glock seems to be significantly more synonymous with negligent discharge than other brands?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Man adjusting their gun shoots themself in ankle and wounds another at HS graduation
- Thread starter solus
- Start date
Glock 23. Why is it that Glock seems to be significantly more synonymous with negligent discharge than other brands?
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
It is just better at helping stupid people identify themselves.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Well they market their guns as perfect, and sing over and over again of the built in safety, three of them no less. Add to that the light switch trigger that takes soooo little effort to pull and numpties sooner or later will have a ND.
These type ND's are not new to Glock though, it is one of the reasons the PeeDee scabbard holster was dumped replaced by Jordan holsters. Closed trigger guards have caused many ND's with revolvers, so the trigger is left uncovered in Jordan duty holsters. But then most revolvers have a 15 pound double action trigger.
IMO a hair trigger is unsafe for most people for carry, Glock is proving my opinion. Again IMO there is no need for a hair trigger for close combat shooting.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
I own only one carry weapon that does not have an external safety. That weapon is always in a proper holster, is carried in my pocket in that holster, and is handled very carefully both in and out of the holster.
Yeah, I'm an old, cranky man, but I have, over the sixty years that I have owned and handled firearms, never had a negligent discharge. The men who first taught me firearms safety demanded darn near perfection. They are all gone now, but those lessons stuck, sometimes with the aid of a switch if I forgot, and have stood me well over the years.
These pistols, and Glock isn't the only one, with no external safety and a very light trigger are, to me, a recipe for disaster. I was offered a Glock, some years ago, by a very good friend who also happened to be a police officer. I didn't like the feel of the trigger (too light) and turned it down.
Yeah, I'm an old, cranky man, but I have, over the sixty years that I have owned and handled firearms, never had a negligent discharge. The men who first taught me firearms safety demanded darn near perfection. They are all gone now, but those lessons stuck, sometimes with the aid of a switch if I forgot, and have stood me well over the years.
These pistols, and Glock isn't the only one, with no external safety and a very light trigger are, to me, a recipe for disaster. I was offered a Glock, some years ago, by a very good friend who also happened to be a police officer. I didn't like the feel of the trigger (too light) and turned it down.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It isn't just that the trigger is light, it is how it performs, that is why I call it a light switch trigger. It is just like a light switch on the wall, after is goes so far it seems to get even lighter, leaving with a feeling that trigger is completing the travel itself. I was very taken back with the first time I fired mine, while I am extra careful with all guns, most people should not carry a gun with such a trigger.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
You're probably right, but I didn't know how else to describe it. Don't get me wrong; Glocks are a fine weapon and, as far as I have been told; well-made. They are just not for me. Yeah, I know I'm an old dinosaur; my son reminds me of it quite frequently.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Experts Find Glocks Prone To Accidents
I'm not a fan of Glocks for a couple of reasons. One, they have a much higher incidence of negligent discharge than all their safety features would lead one to believe.
"A Glock is a safe weapon, Cominolli said, but only if the person handling it knows how to use it. If the gun is unloaded in the wrong order, for example, a round of ammunition can be left in the chamber without the user realizing it, he said. With no manual safety, the gun will fire if the trigger is pulled. "Even with good training, people forget," he said. "And guns are not forgiving." "
I think a large part of the problem is that people come to rely on the safety features instead of careful, purposeful handling and good, safe habits.
The other is that I just don't like a firearm that is too light compared to its recoil.
Source: Experts Find Glocks Prone To Accidents.
I'm not a fan of Glocks for a couple of reasons. One, they have a much higher incidence of negligent discharge than all their safety features would lead one to believe.
"A Glock is a safe weapon, Cominolli said, but only if the person handling it knows how to use it. If the gun is unloaded in the wrong order, for example, a round of ammunition can be left in the chamber without the user realizing it, he said. With no manual safety, the gun will fire if the trigger is pulled. "Even with good training, people forget," he said. "And guns are not forgiving." "
I think a large part of the problem is that people come to rely on the safety features instead of careful, purposeful handling and good, safe habits.
The other is that I just don't like a firearm that is too light compared to its recoil.
Source: Experts Find Glocks Prone To Accidents.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I have ZERO problems with GLOCK in general. Never had a ND with one. But I was just a soldier who learned to not put my finger on the trigger until I either wanted to put holes into a target or until I had cleared the weapon.
The only ND I have been around was a Remington 721 rifle that went bang while at sling arms. I was not hit but was close to it. And there was no finger on the trigger.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The problem is how the human nervous system was designed, of course everybody knows not to put their finger in the trigger guard, and some are successful. But we are known for human error, add to that motor resonses we cannot control, such as gripping during stress, and in the case of a stumble, or fall. It takes more than just keeping a finger out of the trigger with a Glock, it takes leaving the damn thing in the holster until absolutely needed. Of course with LE that is sometimes unavoidable, and the result is the high incidence of ND with Glocks.
Of course if you are not human then disregard the above.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
Glad to hear it, Freedom1Man, but your personal anecdote aside, I prefer a more objective approach. Problems with Glocks and negligent discharges appear all too often in the news, and a higher rate than proportional to their ownership and/or use.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
It is because the police use them and many believe that it is tacticool to use what the police use. Those trying to be tacticool like that, generally, aren't those whom we want representing those of us in thr gun culture. Due to their stupidity, they get more of the attention.
What brand shotgun and ammo did the guy almost blow his own head off use? Why is that not being screamed from the roof tops? But a handgun? Everyone knows the brand and caliber.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
This. I won't even own a Glock simply because of the stigma of Glocktards... And, Gaston is a statist d!ckbag who doesn't deserve my money.
Last edited:
hey.. I like tacticool, it has it's uses, like MOLLE backpacks.. or just MOLLE in general, it allows for user defined necessity of addons.
it also comes in handy in paintball. if your the guy in HDE camo, your less likely to be seen and or tagged.
besides.. it's like accessorizing.. for men... :lol:
since9
Campaign Veteran
You're claiming that the only reason Glocks suffer more negligent discharges has to do with the general inexperience of its users as compared to other makes.
Any objective statistics to back up that claim? Perhaps a bar chart of various popular makes sorted by the relative experience levels? Someone might use years of firearms ownership as a metric, but that's too nebulous and would be a poor indicator. How about frequency of practice at the range? To my knowledge, no such study has been done. Do you know of one?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Let's just say that many Glock owners fall into the James Yeager category...
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I do not have a solid metric. Sorry.
I do own and use glocks.
I have have only had a ND or UD (unexpected discharge) with a RIFLE, and that did not require a finger on the trigger.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
since9
Campaign Veteran
Freedom1Man and WalkingWolf:
Fair enough, and I appreciate you both for working with me.
I volunteer statistical research on various firearms related issues for politicians. As such, I have to stick with the facts. I know I've had more than my own share of opinions, these days I try to stick to verifiable facts on this forum. In my research, there's zero room for opinion, as it must stand up to rigorous, independent statistical scrutiny. Even if we researchers nail an issue, however, there's no guarantee it will change the minds of some. Many politicians couldn't tell you the difference between their opinion, the facts, and a hole in the ground if their lives depended on it. I have observed others with whom I've spoken and knew what they really think blatantly lie to their colleagues and their constituents. Either that or they were blatantly lying to me about what it is they really believed.
The deeper I go, the more clearly see what's going on behind the lines. Fortunately, it's only to a point. Only some of the members of Congress are crooked. Others are indeed working with the truth to toe the line and maintain the dam against the flood of deception. I have spoken with many whose goal it is to ascertain the facts and forge paths along those lines.
They shun idealism in favor of the truth. Those are the ones I help and support.
Fair enough, and I appreciate you both for working with me.
I volunteer statistical research on various firearms related issues for politicians. As such, I have to stick with the facts. I know I've had more than my own share of opinions, these days I try to stick to verifiable facts on this forum. In my research, there's zero room for opinion, as it must stand up to rigorous, independent statistical scrutiny. Even if we researchers nail an issue, however, there's no guarantee it will change the minds of some. Many politicians couldn't tell you the difference between their opinion, the facts, and a hole in the ground if their lives depended on it. I have observed others with whom I've spoken and knew what they really think blatantly lie to their colleagues and their constituents. Either that or they were blatantly lying to me about what it is they really believed.
The deeper I go, the more clearly see what's going on behind the lines. Fortunately, it's only to a point. Only some of the members of Congress are crooked. Others are indeed working with the truth to toe the line and maintain the dam against the flood of deception. I have spoken with many whose goal it is to ascertain the facts and forge paths along those lines.
They shun idealism in favor of the truth. Those are the ones I help and support.