Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: W7LPNRICK on November 25, 2012, 05:36:00 PM
-
Please! Please! Please!? If you are out of practice, make some notes before handling a firearm, especially if ammo is/has been in the vicinity. I don't care if you've handle guns since you were 6, been an Army rifleman for 2 tours, law enforcement veteran, blah blah blah.....It makes the gun grabbers slobber & get all amped up with fodder for another round of "Logical Reasons" why we can't have guns. A good friend who lives a block away shot off his left pinky finger, & got 3rd deg burns to his #4 digit close to the palm from mishandling a Glock. This can be a very dangerous pistol because to remove the slide, one must pull the trigger, so the firing mechanism will drop out of the way and the slide will slide forward off the frame. Failing to Visualize the empty chamber, with the clip removed, before pulling the trigger, WILL result in an accidental discharge sooner or later. He was lucky. His wife was behind him, he was pointed in a relatively safe direction, splattered blood all over his wall, the bed, soaked 2 rolls of Kerlix gauze, & 2 blue plastic chucks before the paramedics got the bleeding stopped. 3 cops arrive <2 minutes, fire truck & paramedics in 3 min, wife traumatized, friend wants all guns out of his house, 2 hours of surgery & he might keep the fingers, nerve severed, skin graft might take, it will never work right again, will always be in the way. Only good thing, Left hand & he's right handed. Every gun you handle IS LOADED unless you look into the chamber. NEVER EVER handle a gun someone else hands you without visualizing the chamber. We only have 10 finger & toes, there is only one you, no matter who you are. Don't get a Darwin Award. Stick around and watch other people get it! or try to stop them too. :salute :old:
-
dang that sucks :( my mom has a matching set of .44 mag revolvers, and when she first got it she put her left pointer finger by over the cylinder and when she shot, she got major powder burns. Luckily it didnt blow her finger open. A friend of mine had a freak accident with his match rife. He had loaded up about a hundred rounds for a weekend match and was checking each round in the chanber for tight ones. He had his gun in a vice pointed toward the door of his garage, which across the street is a house. He had went through about 30 rounds just putting them in the chamber and closing the bolt then ejecting them. He said he didn't know why but he decided to drop the barrel down in the vice so it was pointed down towards the desk, 3 rounds later he closed the bolt on a semi-tight round and he said it just went off. I believe what he says when he said he didnt pull the trigger, as he is very safety minded. He said he didnt know what happened it just went off. If he had been loading hunting ammo, the bullet would have went through the desk drawer, which is where the match bullet just blew apart, probably would have hit the garage floor and either blew up or ricocheted and went to the house across the street. since then he always drops the barrel downwards when he does this, and so do I. ALWAYS be careful with guns and ammo.
-
Yeah, that sucks. An uncle of mine forgot to clear his shotgun coming home from a hunting trip. Carried the shotgun in front of him in one hand while walking down the stairs to the basement where he stored his hunting gear/guns. Buttstock hit one of the steps and he accidentally blew his face off, killing himself instantly. Safety is the alpha and omega when it comes to handling firearms.
-
Yeah, that sucks. An uncle of mine forgot to clear his shotgun coming home from a hunting trip. Carried the shotgun in front of him in one hand while walking down the stairs to the basement where he stored his hunting gear/guns. Buttstock hit one of the steps and he accidentally blew his face off, killing himself instantly. Safety is the alpha and omega when it comes to handling firearms.
Damn thats rough :(
-
Yeah, that sucks. An uncle of mine forgot to clear his shotgun coming home from a hunting trip. Carried the shotgun in front of him in one hand while walking down the stairs to the basement where he stored his hunting gear/guns. Buttstock hit one of the steps and he accidentally blew his face off, killing himself instantly. Safety is the alpha and omega when it comes to handling firearms.
that made me think of a near miss my father had when I was 3. Something happened with the bolt and he was inside the cab of my grandpas truck tried to open bolt and blew a hole in the floorboard. He usually put the end of the barrel on his toe to keep it out of the dirt. luckily he didnt put it on his toe. That was on christmas vacation, and that year I got a BB gun for a present and I didnt want anything to do with it, scared me lol.
-
Great, now I'm going to be paranoied about handling the glock now :bhead.
But seriously, gun safety is quite possibly the most important thing when around or handling firearms. I actually lost my father when I was only one. He was cleaning his gun, accidently shot himself in the head.
-
A weapon has three safety mechanisms. The trigger safety, your finger, and your mind. Dirt simple. I've never had an ND. However I've had to knock on the door of a soldier's mom because someone else did. Not a good day out for anyone.
-
But seriously, gun safety is quite possibly the most important thing when around or handling firearms. I actually lost my father when I was only one. He was cleaning his gun, accidently shot himself in the head.
Damn
That explains a lot
-
do not treat a gun like a gun...treat it like a bomb...there are countless occasions where I have to tell people to put their freaking gun down while there are people going down range...seems simple enough but some folks just get complacent when handling a firearm. I was in college and I thought that I had shot all the rounds from a .22 pistol and upon checking the gun I got the last round to go off...the outcome was scary and to this day I get chills and am glad that my buddy was uninjured and still alive from that discharge....He was nowhere near the muzzle but he could have been.
-
Damn
That explains a lot
.....
-
My father taught me many moons ago, 1)treat every weapon as if its always loaded, 2) never point it at anything you dont intend to shoot, 3) never place your finger on the trigger until your about to shoot.
Its part of every brm class i teach, i use it in and outta my uniforms, and ive been lucky that ive never had an nd. That being said was almost shot (on more the one occaision purely by mistake) because someone failed to follow simple common sense. But yes accidents are bad. Be careful
-
This can be a very dangerous pistol because to remove the slide, one must pull the trigger,
This is a profoundly stupid design feature. The trigger should do one thing only.
-
It is not just guns :old:
You should be careful with all mechanical device, Benchdrills, Bandsaws and drills require safe handling at all times :old:
Its easy to let your guard down :old:
-
There is a reason there are 10 rules in firearms safety. If you screw up in one the others should take care things.
I watched a deputy perform the "gun take down" drill on the firing line and she did everything right except double check that the gun was loaded. So when she pulled the trigger so that she may disassemble her Glock it fired. Luckily, the gun was pointed downrange and nothing was in front of the muzzle. We all got our butts chewed by the chief firearms instructor over firearms safety and the importance of double checking everything all the time when handling a firearm.
It is one touch lesson to learn when an injury is involved.
Anyone ever see that video of big tough ATF agent shoot himself in the leg while teaching a class???
-
Useda work with some guys who thought 'hunting' was drivin their Blazer to a good spot,
setting up a 'blind' near a game trail, and blasting anything that moved anywhere near them
after drinking heavily all afternoon.
It always surprised me that they returned intact.
Their 'kills' were epic .. 4 of them unloading into a 60lb white-tail deer
to the point where just makin a sandwich out of the meat would be questionable.
They were laughin about one of 'em tossin their gun over a fence before climbin over it themselves..
..because when it hit the ground on the other side it went off.
Big fun you bet!
I refused their invitation to be part of that scene.
Dad taught me much the same as has been stated already.
Always treat a gun as if it was loaded.
Never point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot them right then and there.
..among many other things.
-Frank (gun control is being able to hit your target, period)
-
This is a profoundly stupid design feature. The trigger should do one thing only.
Not to be pedantic, but it does.
...
To be fair to the Glock people: You should always clear a gun before trying to disassemble it. Clearing a gun includes pulling the trigger to uncock the gun after you've visually checked the chamber. He also disregarded the rule that you should never put any body parts (that you want to keep) in front of the muzzle while pulling the trigger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZf4mUM10Vc
-
Not to be pedantic, but it does.
...
To be fair to the Glock people: You should always clear a gun before trying to disassemble it. Clearing a gun includes pulling the trigger to uncock the gun after you've visually checked the chamber. He also disregarded the rule that you should never put any body parts (that you want to keep) in front of the muzzle while pulling the trigger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZf4mUM10Vc
Correct.
My touching a firearm necessarily means I open the action and visually inspect the chamber. This is absolutely standard operation procedure with any gun.
Being a Glock owner, I've been known to double and triple check the chamber before disassembling. Even without the need to depress the trigger prior to slide removal, it just makes sense to do so.
-
10 years ago my brother gave me a German Mauser 98 w/ the Nazi symbol intact, re barreled w/ an FN '06 long version barrel. Took it out in the desert to shoot cans, when I closed the bolt on new ammo, it fired, shooting a hole in the window frame of the vehicle. I unloaded it & took it straight home & found a flaw in the frame/stock mount where closing the bolt put the sear & frame in a bind releasing the sear. Took me about a couple hours with a torch to customize the bolt & safety switch to clear the scope, & a Dremel tool to free everything up. I did a trigger job on it while I was at it. I could then float a $1 bill all the way through except the mounting bolts. It became one of the best shooting rifles I've ever had. My son has it & brags about out shooting his friends. Have fun & be safe. :salute
-
I have a Mauser 98 too. :)
It was originally a K98 made in 1943 that the Norwegian army re-chambered to .30-06 after the war. Still got the eagle and swastika on it, but the original serial number has been replaced by the army. I've had it re-chambered it to 9.3mm Mauser and put a better stock on it.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/hvm98.jpg)
-
Weapons "accidents" are from poor weapon handling practices.
If you shoot and kill yourself, more's the better. Keeps the gene pool a bit cleaner...
-
Not to be pedantic, but it does.
Not if you need to depress it to strip the gun it doesn't. It now does two things and the psychological ambiguity is unwanted and dangerous.
-
You don't need to depress it. The gun needs to be uncocked, which it should be after a proper clearing anyway. Watch the video.
-
You don't need to depress it. The gun needs to be uncocked, which it should be after a proper clearing anyway. Watch the video.
I see your point but how else can you de-cock it?
Do you see my point about the overloading of the trigger functionality?
I'm purely speaking from the design point of view, I agree it is the user's responsibility to clear the weapon, this one is just a real nasty 'feature' as illustrated by the OP.
-
No, I don't see your point. The Glock is a perfectly safe firearm and you don't need to touch the trigger while disassembling it. The unfortunate person in the OP's post failed to properly clear the weapon, put his hand in front of the muzzle, and pulled the trigger; something you should never do. Every weapon should be cleared and decocked before disassembly, except those guns that specifically need to be cocked. It is not good, and possibly dangerous, to pull a weapon apart with loaded springs inside; on an M2HB machine gun it is potentially fatal.
ALL weapons should be decocked as a part of the clearing process (the final part). On most weapons that involves pulling the trigger with the weapon pointing in a safe direction.
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9y_FaItcTg
-
I see your point but how else can you de-cock it?
Do you see my point about the overloading of the trigger functionality?
I'm purely speaking from the design point of view, I agree it is the user's responsibility to clear the weapon, this one is just a real nasty 'feature' as illustrated by the OP.
If proper firearm safety was followed, the accident never would have happened. Blaming the gun is like blaming a car after you hit that bus load of Nuns doing 120 in a 35, while texting............
SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY, that is the key to handling firearms, stupid should hurt. If I shoot myself because I was careless, its my fault, not the guns. I never hand someone a gun that I have not showed them it is clear, and I will not take one from someone who doesnt do the same. have I mentioned SAFETY???? It is the first and last rule in gun handling.
NOT
-
I have a Mauser 98 too. :)
It was originally a K98 made in 1943 that the Norwegian army re-chambered to .30-06 after the war. Still got the eagle and swastika on it, but the original serial number has been replaced by the army. I've had it re-chambered it to 9.3mm Mauser and put a better stock on it.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/hvm98.jpg)
I have three Mausers, all in 7.92mm. My favorite is a 98k manufactured in the BRNO factory ("dot" stamped on the receiver) in 1943. Laminate stock, matching serial numbers. Dark bore, but sharp rifling. Won a bet with it some years ago, when I hit 4 out of 5 golf balls using the original battle sights at 200 yards. My friend, shooting a Springfield M1A with a Leupold 3-9x40mm scope... He hit two... :huh
-
If proper firearm safety was followed, the accident never would have happened. Blaming the gun is like blaming a car after you hit that bus load of Nuns doing 120 in a 35, while texting............
No blaming the gun in this case is like blaming the driver when you can only remove the gearbox to change the clutch after you have driven at 120 and looked down to text near a nunnery.
I'm not disputing the proper procedure is necessary for safely dismantling the weapon. I'm saying the procedure itself is promoting the possibility of a negligent discharge.
The design is partially responsible for this accident. The trigger should not feature in the disassembly process at all.
No, I don't see your point. The Glock is a perfectly safe firearm and you don't need to touch the trigger while disassembling it.
:headscratch:
This can be a very dangerous pistol because to remove the slide, one must pull the trigger, so the firing mechanism will drop out of the way and the slide will slide forward off the frame.
Your video:- 00:35 "You know you have to pull the trigger, the trigger needs to be back before you can break it down" - hickok45
-
Arguing that glock's design is poor is tantamount to saying its fine to point the gun at your face when you disassemble it.
The gun wouldn't need to be designed safer if it were used and handled properly. Glock has their design, they're not going to chagne it because some don't practice safe gun-handling.
Is the design at fault? Perhaps, but only in the sense that it set the stage for the man to shoot himself in the face. More along the lines of blaming the clutch for needing to be changed.
-
Arguing that glock's design is poor is tantamount to saying its fine to point the gun at your face when you disassemble it.
lol
-
No blaming the gun in this case is like blaming the driver when you can only remove the gearbox to change the clutch after you have driven at 120 and looked down to text near a nunnery.
I'm not disputing the proper procedure is necessary for safely dismantling the weapon. I'm saying the procedure itself is promoting the possibility of a negligent discharge.
The design is partially responsible for this accident. The trigger should not feature in the disassembly process at all.
:headscratch:
Your video:- 00:35 "You know you have to pull the trigger, the trigger needs to be back before you can break it down" - hickok45
The design can not actually be responsible. Reification
-
Not to be pedantic, but it does.
...
To be fair to the Glock people: You should always clear a gun before trying to disassemble it. Clearing a gun includes pulling the trigger to uncock the gun after you've visually checked the chamber. He also disregarded the rule that you should never put any body parts (that you want to keep) in front of the muzzle while pulling the trigger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZf4mUM10Vc
If I remember correctly,the Glock is striker fired,no hammer,therefore no need to uncock it.
-
Arguing that glock's design is poor is tantamount to saying its fine to point the gun at your face when you disassemble it.
:rolleyes: Crikey Tank-Ace, does this pass for logic in your circles?
The design can not actually be responsible. Reification
Well it is reification in a way. Realistically there may or may not be a capsule of low explosive present in the mechanism when you depress the firing mechanism to disassemble it. I'm sure the person the OP posted about was convinced the chamber was empty, it's easy for human beings to make procedural mistakes, we are not machines. Pulling the trigger is an action which should be reserved for firing the gun when all of the safety features have been satisfied. The designers failed to do everything they could to minimise ND. Poor design. :frown:
Just for the sake of argument, what if the disassembly process involved moving the slide rearward, pressing a button inside the mouth of the ejection port and then continuing to move the slide backwards off the rails to remove it? Then even with a chambered round there would be no danger. You do not have to press the trigger and any round you failed to clear would just plop out. Whereupon you could slap yourself and review your gun safety, instead of counting how many fingers you have left :old:
-
Oops double post.
-
The first time I took my wife shooting, she accidentally discharged the 357 magnum and almost made a hole to my car door. Luckily she didn't point at herself, my then unborn child or anyone else. That was pretty scary :O
-
When I joined the army reserve many years if there was one thing the Instructor emphasised it was to make sure the chamber was clear before pulling the trigger and also never putting any part of yours or anyone else's body in the way of the muzzle as you did so. Forget any of this this you got a memorable bollocking. (We used Lee Enfield .303s) To the point that even now after all these years I even treat an airsoft gun like it was real. :huh
Good training, that's what it's all about. Guns are only as safe or as dangerous as the user. There was a funny story with a Glock in this country. A guy was showing off to his friends, took out the magazine pointed it as his head and pulled the trigger while they videod him with their phones. I believe it was quite messy. :rofl
Now you might be thinking I'm a sicko for making fun of this situation. But save it. He was a notorious gangster, drug dealer and killer. Poetic justice because apparently he was showing his mates how to kill someone. He did a good job of it!
-
If I remember correctly,the Glock is striker fired,no hammer,therefore no need to uncock it.
As far as being striker fired is concerned, you are correct. There is no hammer. However the factory instructions as well as all the other source instructions are clear. To break the Glock down you must pull the trigger all the way through first. It has something to do with positioning the transfer parts to a neutral position.
Since I have used a Glock for more than 2 decades (it was one of the 3 authorized semi autos by the Department) I am more than familiar with it's operation. It makes no difference to caliber, or generation, they ALL break down the same way.
It was also hammered into me on this and EVERY other weapon, during handling the FIRST thing you do is insure it is not loaded. The action is opened and cleared. I make myself do this 3 times with the Glock and still insure it's pointed in a safe direction before engaging the booger hook on the trigger.
Complacency and comfort with any type of machine is the first step to having an accident with it. Tools will bite and they have neither conscience nor regrets.
-
I always liked the decocking lever in some modern double action first shot autos like the CZ-75 series...but again, not visualizing the chamber was the main problem simply put. :salute
-
If I remember correctly,the Glock is striker fired,no hammer,therefore no need to uncock it.
The Glock has a hammer of a sort, but it's completely conealed internally, and looks like an elongated firing pin. Perhaps this is what you call a striker?
-
Well it is reification in a way. Realistically there may or may not be a capsule of low explosive present in the mechanism when you depress the firing mechanism to disassemble it.
Again, you do not depress the trigger during disassembly. The trigger needs to have been depressed (to de-cock, de-strike, de-whatever the firing mechanism) prior to disassembly. Big difference.
Watch this video carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN1QJDGinwE
After he cleared the weapon and decocked it by dry-firing it in a safe direction, at no point did he touch the trigger while pulling it apart. The trigger on a Glock stays in its rear position after having been pulled. The trigger only returns to its forward position when the weapon cycles. I had a Glock 17 as my service pistol for two years. I know this.
-
The Glock has a hammer of a sort, but it's completely concealed internally, and looks like an elongated firing pin. Perhaps this is what you call a striker?
uncocking it lowers the sear or other protruding mechanical part allowing the slide to come off the front of the frame. Not sure what you call it, but won't disassemble without it. No external hammer, no decocking lever, necessitating a dry fire before dis-assembly are hazards with the Glock IMO. The 1911 can be decocked w/o dry firing, by easing the hammer down with 2 hands. The grip safety makes this a little awkward but easier with practice. The XD-40 style Springfield has a top mounted extractor which sticks up out of the slide if a round remains chambered...a nice attribute. I had one of these & liked it better than my Glock 19... :salute
-
Again, you do not depress the trigger during disassembly. The trigger needs to have been depressed (to de-cock, de-strike, de-whatever the firing mechanism) prior to disassembly. Big difference.
Watch this video carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN1QJDGinwE
After he cleared the weapon and decocked it by dry-firing it in a safe direction, at no point did he touch the trigger while pulling it apart. The trigger on a Glock stays in its rear position after having been pulled. The trigger only returns to its forward position when the weapon cycles. I had a Glock 17 as my service pistol for two years. I know this.
Uhhhhh...he pulled the trigger. Whatever semantics you want to use is ok with me, but he pulled the trigger anyway. watch it again.
-
If you follow the basic four rules of clearing a firearm you should (step 4) dry-fire the weapon in a safe direct... ALWAYS. If you follow the safety rules of clearing a firearm the Glock pistol is ready for disassembly, having already been dry-fired during clearing.
-
He pulled the trigger/dry-fired the pistol in a safe direction (though I wouldn't have touched the slide like that if I were him) BEFORE he started to disassemble the Glock.
-
I have three Mausers, all in 7.92mm. My favorite is a 98k manufactured in the BRNO factory ("dot" stamped on the receiver) in 1943. Laminate stock, matching serial numbers. Dark bore, but sharp rifling. Won a bet with it some years ago, when I hit 4 out of 5 golf balls using the original battle sights at 200 yards. My friend, shooting a Springfield M1A with a Leupold 3-9x40mm scope... He hit two... :huh
Yes, it's a supremely accurate weapon. The Mauser is very popular here as a hunting rifle, especially after the National Guard sold all their M98's for like $100 a piece back in the '70s. Mine is one of those. Produced in 1943, re-chamberd after the war to NATO standard and put into mobilization storage. Never even fired before selling it 30 years later.
-
Again, you do not depress the trigger during disassembly.
Yes, I understood that.
The trigger needs to have been depressed (to de-cock, de-strike, de-whatever the firing mechanism) prior to disassembly. Big difference.
Yup, doesn't change the fact the trigger functionality is overloaded. You have to dry fire the weapon to de-cock it, that's unintelligent, from the design point of view.
-
Yes, I understood that.
Yup, doesn't change the fact the trigger functionality is overloaded. You have to dry fire the weapon to de-cock it, that's unintelligent, from the design point of view.
Then 99% of all firearms ever made are "unintelligent, from the design point of view." Only a very few guns are made with a decocking feature that does not require the trigger to be depressed. I've personally never held such a weapon. Perhaps because the very reason why you always should dry-fire a weapon while clearing it is to make sure it really is not loaded.
-
Does lowering the hammer on a Colt 45 constitute dry firing?
-
You do need to depress the trigger to lower the hammer on a Colt .45 /M1911, so yes it fits your "trigger functionality is overloaded" argument.
-
after seeing all the people say the gun is to complicated for joe everyman to clean it, maybe they just shouldn't own a gun, if you do not know what it takes to take care of your weapon and how to stay safe with it then you are obviously not responsible for being in the position to possibly take your, or anyone else's life. i was lucky in the regard that in my area hunter safety is mandatory in our school curriculum so you learn early on the dos and donts and the biggest dont there is is not to put anything in from of the barrel you cannot bear to lose.
-
i had an accident with a Nerf once... I never ever thought they could break glass.. :uhoh
-
remove magazine, clear chamber. chamber clear? Continue. Not clear, repeat steps one and two until desired results manifest.
-
Perhaps because the very reason why you always should dry-fire a weapon while clearing it is to make sure it really is not loaded.
So, you're saying to confirm that your check of a weapon was actually correct, and that it is clear, that the thing to do is pull the trigger, the one function that will actually discharge a round if your initial check was wrong? This sort of defeats the purpose and definition of "make sure it really isn't loaded" for safety purposes, don't you think?
The reason that pointing in a safe direction after confirming a weapon is clear and de-cocking or dry firing is to put the firing mechanism into an "at rest" state for purposes of keeping said mechanism, springs, and other stressed and wearing parts into a state that puts the least stress on them if it is being stored, but primarily it serves as a safety feature - avisual aid in the case of weapons with exposed hammers, so that it is readily apparent to anyone looking at it that it that the hammer is down and in a safer condition that being cocked. Example, a 1911 that has been cleared and re-holstered on a range or during a course that still has the hammer back will attract the attention of wrath of the instructor or even other students, as it would be "hammer down" if the proper procedure on the line was followed - remove magazine, visually and tactily verify clear, release action/slide, decock/release hammer/dry fire in safe direction, the re-holster. In the case of DA/SA/Internal Striker pistols, decocking or dry firing in order to accomplish the same thing is done for consistency reasons in terms of reholstering or storing the pistol after it has been cleared as well. It has NOTHING to do with "verifying" or "confirming" that your visual and tactile check that the weapon is unloaded was right the first time, as if it wasn't, and you do dry fire it, the obvious result is "bang". Kind of purpose defeating in terms of "making sure it's unloaded" don't you think?
Only a very few guns are made with a decocking feature that does not require the trigger to be depressed. I've personally never held such a weapon
I don't understand what you're saying here G. I think there are MANY pistols that have de-cockers where you do NOT press the trigger to engage them. The Sig 226, 220, 229, 228, CZ75/85/ BD models, CZ SP-01 (D means decocker), Most of the Ruger DA/SA line, HK USP, HK45, HK2000, Beretta 92/96 have a decocker built into the safety switch as well, the Walther P99's we ran on our range also had a decocking device, on the top rear left of the slide activated by the right thumb, it put the internal striker into it's double action stage with the longer pull, some of the Smith semi auto's have decockers as well, many of the Israeli "Baby Eagles" and "Jerichos" are decocker models.....you get my drift. A majority of combat double action/single action pistols have a decocking device included, so pressing the trigger isn't necessary. Ever try to pull the trigger and release the hammer slowly with your thumb when your hands are frozen from shooting outside in -40 or colder weather, or when you have blood, or sweat, or even just wetness from the rain on your hands? Decocking is far safer and more reliable for putting your pistol into a re-holster safe condition.
I would also like to say that most, as in a huge majority of accidents that good or experienced shooters have is related to dry firing after failing to clear the weapon properly due to either distraction or being overtired, or just plain making a dumb mistake and not following all the rules in the proper sequence. Dry firing in of itself is a very important tool for shooters, I was taught, and nearly every reputable gunfighting school teaches, that 80% of your training and practice with a pistol should be dry firing at targets, and running through your drills dry. This allows you to build and improve your fire control (trigger press) skills far more quickly and cheaply than with live rounds, and also allows you to train any place you like that gives you some privacy, without having to go to a range.
As far as the OP and firearms safety, verifying that the weapon is clear is obviously the most important thing in safety, pointing in a safe direction, removing the magazine, visually checking the chamber and magazine well for ammunition or any obstructions at all while KEEPING the weapon pointed in that safe direction, then repeating the process with the index finger of the non dominant hand, in order to have a tactile confirmation of the empty status (this is not just a brain teaser type of thing or a confirmation, it is done to simulate having to clear a weapon in low or no light conditions), then release the action/slide, decock/dry fire/hammer release, then re holster, or re store.
Another very important thing regarding safety is weapon handling while using it. We teach that you should imagine your muzzle has a constant beam or laser coming out of it, and anything that beam comes into contact with will be destroyed. In other words, if you need to turn/move in order to engage or point your weapon, be cognizant of the things and obstacles in the path your muzzle will take. Example, if there is a friendly ten feet in front of you, and you have to sweep through him in order to move or point your weapon at something to the other side of him, you need to lower the muzzle as you trace the path AROUND AND BELOW him before bringing your weapon back up to engage your target. There are many different examples and cases of this, but the bottom line is you move your body and weapon muzzle AROUND friendlies, and NEVER sweep them with your muzzle.
One last point, is that your fire control/trigger finger is an important factor as well. That finger only goes to the trigger when the decision to fire is made, and then immediately returns to its off the trigger posture when done firing, and scanning using universal cover techniques, or whatever way you've been trained to follow through after firing/engaging. If you watch any of the MagPul training videos on uTube, they show a good example of this with the AR platform rifles. The instant the shooter is done firing, then scanning, the safety is immediately engaged on the rifle. Then, when a new target is engaged, the weapon comes up and presents to the target, sight picture acquired, safety moved to the fire mode, finger then moves to the trigger, presses it, finger comes off the trigger and returns to at rest spot on the receiver, scans are done, then rifle is put back on safe. It sounds like a lot to do in order to just shoot something, but it can all be done VERY quickly, and is critical for having consistent safety both operationally and on the practice/training range.
-
Yes. The final step after pointing the gun in a safe direction, removing the magazine and checking the chamber visually and/or physically (with your finger) is to dry-fire the weapon in a safe direction. If you hear a click and not a bang, you and everyone around you know the weapon is safe. At least that's how gun safety is thought in the Norwegian Army's weapon clearing drill, and at gun clubs. Of course YMMV on your side of the pond, but the video I posted earlier showing an American doing the exact same drill makes me doubt that.
As for the guns you mentioned with de-cockers, those would be in the 1% of weapons that have them. The rest of the 99% of all guns made don't have any such device. Admittedly I'm pulling these numbers out of my arse, but I'm going to stick by them until someone can prove otherwise.
-
You are a remarkably rigid thinker GScholz. it's taken I don't know how many posts to get you to concede that dry firing is a necessary step to disassemble certain firearms and now you are asserting that 99% of firearms are like this, so it must be right. :frown:
Gman, I'd like to know, with your apparent depth of knowledge on the subject, what you consider the safest pistol presently available for concealed carry is. Do you think de-cocking levers further confuse procedures? What about a design like the H&K P7 which automatically de-noodles when you let go of the grip? Have you ever encountered a P7?
-
You're right Gsholz, when it comes to all the various firearms and weapons out there, it is a pretty small percentage that have de cockers. It's just in the realm of combat pistols a significant percentage of them do, but overall when counting everything else, it's not that many I suppose.
NRShida, my shop back in 2004 or so imported 100 completely new in the box HK P7 squeeze cockers with the European heel magazine release. I bought two of them, I shoot one, and kept the other for kicks in new in the box condition. These are fixed barrel pistols as you know, and therefore very VERY accurate and consistent for their size and bbl length. Also, as you've stated, VERY safe to carry in any way, and just safe in general as the striker/hammer/thingy cannot impact a round without that front part of the pistol grip being squeezed very directly and consciously. Along with a double action pistol with a safety, say like an HK USP with the hammer down AND on safety with the safety switch, I can't really think of anything safer in terms of automatic pistols. One thing about the HK p7, at least the single stack ones I have - they get hotter than a frying pan after even 50 rounds of rapid fire. If you use one on a shooting course or for a day of heavy shooting, wear gloves or prepare to have some new burn marks to brag about.
A lot of guys have safety jitters over single action pistols when it comes to carrying them with the pistol in battery, as in hammer back safety on, but statically they are just as unlikely to have a mechanical failure-discharge as say an internal striker Glock...it just "looks" less safe I guess with that hammer back or something, and gets into the head a little is the only explanation I have for why this occurs.
As for that question of "safest" CCW pistol, it's a really tough call, and down to the user. I'd prefer to look at it as more of a "the safest or best shooter" as opposed to the "safest or best pistol" when it comes to this. Obviously there are some types that are better suited to CCW in terms of avoiding accidents, but as for the decocker issue, it's just another design or feature that can be learned/trained with like any other. The important thing is consistency once these skills and methods are learned so far as safety is concerned. So, is a small frame short barrel revolver any safer than say a small DA/SA Sig pistol, like the Sig239 for example? Well, for me, no, not really, but for a brand new shooter that is just beginning to learn and build a skill set, then I would answer "it depends". If it is a really switched on person who takes to the training like a duck to water, it's different than a 55 year old grandmother who just got robbed and is deciding to learn how to carry the small revolver she just bought. In her case, obviously yes, a simple revolver will statistically be less likely to be involved in a accidental discharge, as there is less for her to learn and remember regarding the training of its use. However, the bottom line of the 4 basic rules still apply, and so long as they are always followed, it shouldn't be an issue. Now, obviously different pistols lend themselves better to different carry methods, for example in the pocket, inside the pants waistband, in a carry pouch, shoulder holster (vomit), ankle holster, etc. There are lots of issues than can be argued, discussed, and explored regarding hammer less designs for in the pocket, non-single action for more perceived "safety" for inside the pants (like I said before, mainly a mental issue), etc. There is no right or wrong answer for a lot of these issues, as like I said, I believe that it comes down to the individual users skills, and their ability to consistently consider, use, and improve them.
-
:rolleyes: Crikey Tank-Ace, does this pass for logic in your circles?
The argument was essentially that if you didn't need to depress the glock's trigger to remove th slide, the man would not have been shot in the face.
It took the form of something along the lines of "if the glock had a safer design...."
The glock is a perfectly safe pistol when properly handled. So saying glock should have made a safer weapon is putting personal safety onto the shoulders of gun manufacturers. In other words, you shouldn't have to check the chamber for it to be safe.
No matter how you argue it, it all comes down to the fact that the man pointed the gun at his face when he didn't difinitivly know it to be safe (we know this, because if he had checked the weapon, he would have seen that it had a round chambered).
-
The argument was essentially that if you didn't need to depress the glock's trigger to remove th slide, the man would not have been shot in the face.
It took the form of something along the lines of "if the glock had a safer design...."
Let's not change the subject here. What shida actually said was that the design seems to be unintelligent, not that it is unsafe, or that the man would not have shot himself in the face. You hilariously decided to take that and turn it into:
Arguing that glock's design is poor is tantamount to saying its fine to point the gun at your face when you disassemble it.
Let's all just take a moment to laugh at you some more.
:rofl
I don't want to presume to speak for shida, but my reading and understanding of the thread (probably superior to yours because I am at least passably literate and don't have retarded genes) was that he was commenting solely on the pros and cons of the design of the gun, and not making a judgement on the situation of the idiot who shot himself
-
Gman, I am encouraged that someone with your knowledge and experience thinks the P7 was a sound design from the safety features perspective. I'm surprised this solution didn't become more popular. The heating is due to the gas delayed blowback, I suppose they thought the German police wouldn't be using 50 rounds rapid while on duty :rofl
Many thanks for sharing your experience, there is a potentially practical application for my questions.
Tank-Ace, I believe the man in question shot himself in the hand not the face. I hope you do not take this as disrespectful, but I have several times in this thread tried to make my point which very specifically pertains to design, as Mr. Coombz says. If you are unwilling to make the effort to carefully read and comprehend what I am saying but instead type knee-jerk responses to a stimulus you think you are receiving then I fail to see how trying to discuss this further with you would be productive.
Hello Mr. Coombz, how's the rash? :old:
-
Just depends on how you was raised and what you did with it . When I was growning up my father( he was 82 airborn) had a team of hunters of 30 to 60 people running dogs every year and we had only one to get hurt the hole time . Most of the guys was from Vietnam anyway so these guys had training ,anyways one night I had a few guys with me spotlighting and I hit a ditch with my truck pretty hard to get through it and his rifle went off (30-06) and he had the gun pointing upwards . the round hit him in the upper right arm . Boy he lost allot of blood and was lucky as all get out but did not lose his arm being the gun was not a few inch's away . Its easier to get your rifle out the window with the gun pointing up but after that happen I made every one start pointing them down . Now this was back in my outlaw days and would not put up with stuff like that now . Like in my trap club . If you walk out to your station or live it and your gun is not breached it's a $50 fine .Main thing is training and do a very lot of shooting . Five thing's to learn is :Be Properly Trained
Properly Licensed
Properly Educated
Properly Equipped
And Properly Insured
And listen, you can go it alone and get yourself trained, licensed, educated, equipped, and insured...but it's best to learn from someone that's been there and done that .
Hope this helps
-
Gun safety is one area where your thinking should be quite "rigid". The Glock range of pistols is used by the armies and/or police forces of 47 countries, including the USA, UK, and even Russia. Its safety features is one of its biggest selling points. To say that it is unsafe or "unintelligent, from the design point of view" is an inept characterization made from a position of ignorance.
-
Gun safety is one area where your thinking should be quite "rigid".
I'm not talking about disciplined procedure, that's something else.
The Glock range of pistols is used by the armies and/or police forces of 47 countries, including the USA, UK, and even Russia. Its safety features is one of its biggest selling points.
The popularity could be due to other factors such as cost. This is the kind of rigidity I mean.
To say that it is unsafe or "unintelligent, from the design point of view" is an inept characterization made from a position of ignorance.
Or it could be an impartial observation from a product design expert.
-
The Glock is not a cheap handgun. It's not the most expensive either, but when special forces like the German GSG9, Russian A-teams, French special forces, Israeli Defense Force, FBI and U.S. Marshals Service import the Glock instead of using domestic alternatives, it certainly isn't because of cost issues. In the civilian market American gun manufacturers did their damnedest to stop the Glock from entering the market, but it still became what Paul M. Barrett calls "America's Gun".
As a self proclaimed "product design expert" you made a brass statement back on page one:
This is a profoundly stupid design feature. The trigger should do one thing only.
You've been desperately trying to defend that statement ever since, despite the fact that it is completely false. You dance around the subject, repeatedly changing and injecting new qualifiers, but in the end you can not get away from the indisputable truth: The trigger on the Glock pistol does indeed only do one thing.
-
The Glock is not a cheap handgun. It's not the most expensive either, but when special forces like the German GSG9, Russian A-teams, French special forces, Israeli Defense Force, FBI and U.S. Marshals Service import the Glock instead of using domestic alternatives, it certainly isn't because of cost issues. In the civilian market American gun manufacturers did their damnedest to stop the Glock from entering the market, but it still became what Paul M. Barrett calls "America's Gun".
But your assertion does not prove that the selection was based on safety considerations does it?
As a self proclaimed "product design expert" you made a brass statement back on page one:
You've been desperately trying to defend that statement ever since, despite the fact that it is completely false. You dance around the subject, repeatedly changing and injecting new qualifiers, but in the end you can not get away from the indisputable truth: The trigger on the Glock pistol does indeed only do one thing.
I wouldn't say desperately, I am trying to get someone to illustrate how my theory is faulty. So far Gman has added weight to it and all I've got from you is a wriggling circular and pedantic argument that essentially boils down to x million users can't be wrong, and the Glock is perfectly safe enough when we point in a safe direction and play the 'is the chamber empty' Russian Roulette for bystanders to see.
Look at your clinging to this statement: 'The trigger on the Glock pistol does indeed only do one thing'. Yes it it releases the striker into the chamber whether there is a round there or not. I agree with you up to that point. I suggest having to do that as part of the disassembly / decocking process is not sensible and increases the possibility of ND. I think touching the trigger should be done during one operation: firing the gun at the target after the safety features have been satisfied.
It's okay with me you know GScholz, to have a difference of opinion. I gather for you it is very important to be right all the time. I would be very happy if you could prove I am wrong because that would advance my work. Go ahead and show conclusively why it is beneficial to pull the trigger as part of any 'making safe' procedure without the possibility of the gun going off and I'll happily concede I am wrong.
-
Go ahead and show conclusively why it is beneficial to pull the trigger as part of any 'making safe' procedure without the possibility of the gun going off and I'll happily concede I am wrong.
Pulling the trigger and dry-firing the gun is the only way to be sure, and to make other people around you (say at a shooting range) sure that the gun is indeed empty and safe. When, not if, the gun fires a round down range instead of making a clicking sound this procedure proves its worth, and possibly saves a life. If the unfortunate person in the OP's post had done this he would have fired a round in a safe direction instead of blowing a hole in his hand. Remember, that person believed he had successfully cleared the gun. People make mistakes and this is the last barrier of safety to avoid an accident. This is basic firearms safety instructed, I would think, universally around the world. It is how the Norwegian Army trains and it is how this American gentleman instructs firearms safety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9y_FaItcTg&feature=player_detailpage#t=114s As previously shown.
The the possibility of the gun going off is exactly why you should do it.
-
What if the slide is locked back? Doesn't this also communicate a safe state like a break action shotgun?
-
No. What if you drop the gun? The action could easily close and create a dangerous situation. As long as there is a chance that there is a live round in the chamber no gun is safe, period. The only way to make sure is to pull the trigger in a safe direction and see what happens.
-
No. What if you drop the gun? The action could easily close and create a dangerous situation. As long as there is a chance that there is a live round in the chamber no gun is safe, period. The only way to make sure is to pull the trigger in a safe direction and see what happens.
NEVER EVER PULL A TRIGGER ON A GUN TO ENSURE ITS EMPTY/SAFE...... NEVER!!
You always open the action and verify clear and safe by ensuring that the source of ammo is removed... Magazine, shotgun shells, etc.... then verify the chamber is empty. You will do this step each time you pick up a gun no matter if you think its unloaded or not.
By programming yourself to pull the trigger on a gun you assume to be empty will get you or someone else killed. Its poor weapons handling on your part and piss poor training. I highly recommend you get proper training from a credible source.
To the OP, there is no such thing as an "Accident" when it deals with guns, its only negligence.
-
No. What if you drop the gun? The action could easily close and create a dangerous situation. As long as there is a chance that there is a live round in the chamber no gun is safe, period. The only way to make sure is to pull the trigger in a safe direction and see what happens.
Or to decock it with another method, surely?
Slide locked open without a magazine I meant, same as your drill.
Also, your method only works if I witness you dry firing it. If you do that and put the weapon on the bench, then go for a wizz and I come along, I have to assume the weapon is in a dangerous condition (according to the four rules), since I didn't see you dry fire it. Right?
-
I don't know why the cops went to the Glock when the S&W 9mm they were carying is such a fine gun . Where I got mine the cop went to the Glock so I got his 9mm .
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y313/LittleGeorgeJr/sandw.jpg)
-
Or to decock it with another method, surely?
Slide locked open without a magazine I meant, same as your drill.
Also, your method only works if I witness you dry firing it. If you do that and put the weapon on the bench, then go for a wizz and I come along, I have to assume the weapon is in a dangerous condition (according to the four rules), since I didn't see you dry fire it. Right?
Assuming you are still speaking about a Glock your assertion is incorrect. In the dry fired condition you mention the trigger remains back in the pulled position. In other words had the trigger been pulled it stays back in the rearward position and is very obvious to the observer. It only resets after the slide has been moved to the rear beyond the dis assembly point. To remove the slide after the trigger is pulled you move the slide to the rear only a small distance and depress the slide release catch. About 1/8 of an inch or so.
Secondly the trigger does two functions. It stacks or moves the striker to the full cocked position just prior to release. Before the trigger is pulled and after it is reset the striker is only under partial compression of the firing spring tension. It is held in that position by the internal stop, the retracting firing pin lock. When the trigger is pulled the striker is moved back to full cock, the firing pin lock is depressed clearing the movement for the pin to go forward to hit the primer of the cartridge after the trigger transfer bars reaches full rearward travel and descends to release the striker. The striker remains forward, protruding from the breech and the trigger remains in the rearmost position until the slide moves rearward enough to allow them to return to the pre firing position.
In a 1911 during the dis assembly process the slide MUST move back far enough for the barrel retention pin to be removed. That distance will put the hammer in full cocked position before the slide moves forward to clear the frame. It takes less effort to remove the slide if you manually cock the hammer before moving the slide to the rear.
-
I don't know why the cops went to the Glock when the S&W 9mm they were carying is such a fine gun . Where I got mine the cop went to the Glock so I got his 9mm .
One of the reasons is the DA then SA trigger pull on the S&W. Since the S&W is carried hammer down but with a round chambered the trigger has to fully cock the hammer. After the first round it reverts to a SA pull, far lighter and shorter, like a standard SA semi auto like the 1911.
-
I see what your saying Maverick , thx .
-
Or to decock it with another method, surely?
No. The whole point is to fire the gun safely, if there happens to be a round in the chamber after you cleared it (and failed somehow like the person in the OP's post). Just decocking it will not make the weapon safe.
The vast majority of pistols with decocking levers are double-action pistols. The function of the decocking lever is not part of the clearing process, but to safely decock a loaded weapon so it can be carried in a loaded state more safely. In other words you load the weapon, decock it and put it in your holster, ready to shoot (since it is double-action). Single action pistols like the Glock or Colt 1911 typically have no decocking feature because it would be pointless.
I feel I must repeat for added clarity: The whole point of pulling the trigger (as the last step of clearing a weapon) is to fire the weapon (if it happens to be loaded still).
Slide locked open without a magazine I meant, same as your drill.
A removed magazine does not mean the chamber is empty. I could remove the mag, pull back the slide and lock it, and there could still be a round in the chamber. Sometimes the extractor fails. Such a weapon if dropped would, in fact, most likely result in the slide lock failing and releasing the slide, closing the action and creating a very dangerous situation. Less so in the Glock than most other handguns though because of its internal safeties, but still very undesirable.
Also, your method only works if I witness you dry firing it. If you do that and put the weapon on the bench, then go for a wizz and I come along, I have to assume the weapon is in a dangerous condition (according to the four rules), since I didn't see you dry fire it. Right?
You should always clear the weapon and demonstrate that it is cleared before handing it over to someone else. That person should then immediately clear it as well just to be safe. Any weapon you pick up should be immediately cleared by you no matter what.
-
NEVER EVER PULL A TRIGGER ON A GUN TO ENSURE ITS EMPTY/SAFE...... NEVER!!
You always open the action and verify clear and safe by ensuring that the source of ammo is removed... Magazine, shotgun shells, etc.... then verify the chamber is empty. You will do this step each time you pick up a gun no matter if you think its unloaded or not.
By programming yourself to pull the trigger on a gun you assume to be empty will get you or someone else killed. Its poor weapons handling on your part and piss poor training. I highly recommend you get proper training from a credible source.
To the OP, there is no such thing as an "Accident" when it deals with guns, its only negligence.
Standard weapon clearing drill Norwegian Army:
Step one: Make sure the weapon is pointing in a safe direction (always).
Step two: Remove the magazine.
Step three: Visually and/or physically (with your fingers) check that the chamber is empty.
Step four: Close the slide/bolt and pull the trigger while keeping the weapon pointing in a safe direction.
Is this clear enough? (after how many posts?)
-
Assuming you are still speaking about a Glock your assertion is incorrect. In the dry fired condition you mention the trigger remains back in the pulled position. In other words had the trigger been pulled it stays back in the rearward position and is very obvious to the observer.
That's interesting. I wouldn't know that not being a Glock expert. But I assume you still wouldn't trust the position of the trigger as an indicator of decocked? How about a chamber indicator or a a 'cocked / uncocked' indicator? How much confidence do they inspire?
I feel I must repeat for added clarity: The whole point of pulling the trigger (as the last step of clearing a weapon) is to fire the weapon (if it happens to be loaded still).
Yes I understand. Very useful information. Thank you.
-
:rolleyes: Crikey Tank-Ace, does this pass for logic in your circles?
Well it is reification in a way. Realistically there may or may not be a capsule of low explosive present in the mechanism when you depress the firing mechanism to disassemble it. I'm sure the person the OP posted about was convinced the chamber was empty, it's easy for human beings to make procedural mistakes, we are not machines. Pulling the trigger is an action which should be reserved for firing the gun when all of the safety features have been satisfied. The designers failed to do everything they could to minimise ND. Poor design. :frown:
Just for the sake of argument, what if the disassembly process involved moving the slide rearward, pressing a button inside the mouth of the ejection port and then continuing to move the slide backwards off the rails to remove it? Then even with a chambered round there would be no danger. You do not have to press the trigger and any round you failed to clear would just plop out. Whereupon you could slap yourself and review your gun safety, instead of counting how many fingers you have left :old:
I agree on pulling the trigger is an action designed for firing the gun. That includes any time deductively. Thats why you always point in a safe direction and empirically check the chamber and magazine. The same rules have to be applied to a gun with a decocker. The rules work for all guns.
I will post more later if your up for it sounds like a great conversation. I am short on time tho. cheers
-
I don't know why the cops went to the Glock when the S&W 9mm they were carying is such a fine gun . Where I got mine the cop went to the Glock so I got his 9mm .
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y313/LittleGeorgeJr/sandw.jpg)
Much of it had to do with marketing, maintenance, and ease of usage. A Glock is an idiot's gun, *anyone* can pick it up and operate it. There is no safety, no de-cock lever, no hammer, no single or double action, it required minimal maintenance (much of it is plastic). Glock came in and undercut S&W in a major way in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Ultimately they went to the extreme to get government contracts.
There is a reason LEO's have the worst hit ratio in history right now. This can be proven easily once the stats of the NYPD are examined. When they carried the S&W Mod 10 revolver in .38 Special the average shot fired in an engagement was less than 4. Now it is over 10. IIRC, the NYPD switched to the Glock 19 in 1996 and since then accuracy has plummeted.
Here is a good article on the NYPD version of the Glock 19: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/
-
I will post more later if your up for it sounds like a great conversation. I am short on time tho. cheers
Yes great, the more input and opinions the better. :salute
-
That's interesting. I wouldn't know that not being a Glock expert. But I assume you still wouldn't trust the position of the trigger as an indicator of decocked? How about a chamber indicator or a a 'cocked / uncocked' indicator? How much confidence do they inspire?
A chamber indicator only tells you that there is a cartridge case in the chamber. It does not tell you if the gun is cocked, the cartridge is empty, loaded or a dummy cartridge. FWIW even in a gen 1 Glock the extractor sticks out a bit and you can tell the chamber is occupied by running your finger along it. It doesn't work on all makes of semi auto's. Some do "show" a bit of change in extractor position and others like the standard 1911 have totally enclosed extractors.
I should also tell you that the gen 1 through 3 Glock plastic case (I haven't seen any gen 4 yet) that the gun came in was made in a manner that it requires the trigger to be pulled to fit inside. There is a plastic protrusion in the base of the container that sticks up into the trigger guard and won't fit unless the trigger is to the rear.
As far as telling if a weapon is loaded s concerned it's simple, check it manually by opening the action. That works for revolvers, semi auto, bolt actions, crack barrel, lever action or slide action. It does not work with muzzle loaders. To me the only "safed" weapon is one that is in pieces on a mat. If it has been taken apart it can't fire. ALL other weapons must be checked by the person handling it to determine it's loaded / unloaded status. I don't care if the clerk in a gun store hands me the gun after checking the chamber. I will still open the action and look for myself. Otherwise the gun is loaded as far as I am concerned and is handled as such. Even after I have unloaded the gun I will still try to insure the muzzle never covers anyone while I am handling it.
-
How safe am I? You tell me...
I ALWAYS consider...
1) All guns are ALWAYS loaded.
2) Never point the muzzle at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
3) Keep YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER until you are ON TARGET
4) Be sure of your target before moving the finger onto the trigger.
How safe am I?
Edit: I might add, I can't tell you how many people NEVER ask "Is the gun loaded?" when I hand them an empty pistol with the action pulled back. You're never considered a stupid person if you ask me that question, even WITH the barrel clear and action open. And if you check yourself after I say yes, I buy you beer for life! :)
-
Much of it had to do with marketing, maintenance, and ease of usage. A Glock is an idiot's gun, *anyone* can pick it up and operate it. There is no safety, no de-cock lever, no hammer, no single or double action, it required minimal maintenance (much of it is plastic). Glock came in and undercut S&W in a major way in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Ultimately they went to the extreme to get government contracts.
There is a reason LEO's have the worst hit ratio in history right now. This can be proven easily once the stats of the NYPD are examined. When they carried the S&W Mod 10 revolver in .38 Special the average shot fired in an engagement was less than 4. Now it is over 10. IIRC, the NYPD switched to the Glock 19 in 1996 and since then accuracy has plummeted.
Here is a good article on the NYPD version of the Glock 19: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/
You do realize that the article you listed does not indicate that the Glock per se is a cause or contributor to poor shooting. It along with the other two weapons listed in the article are all modified to have 12 lb trigger pulls for NYPD use. The author's premise is that the trigger pull is excessively strong to allow "good" accuracy. I tend to agree, as far as target shooting is concerned. I am not a fan of a light SA trigger on a combat weapon, especially when the operator is expected to have more than one task to do when holding the weapon. It's one thing to just be shooting it, it's another when you have to chase someone or secure the person(s) in a hurry.
It's a fallacy to think that just because a person is a LEO and qualified with a weapon that they can really shoot well. Lots of cops are not gun people. I would say that in the case of NYC given the prevalent bias of the area towards firearms that almost all of the NYPD are not "gun people". I've known some that never fired their weapon unless it was for annual (or even less frequent) qualification. I talked to one armorer in my own Department who had to work on a gun one of the detectives carried. It fired 3 of 5 shots and couldn't be unloaded. The cartridges had been inside the gun so long the brass corroded and "welded" themselves to the chamber. Another "idiot" actually believed the wives tale that you could clean a stainless steel revolver in the dishwasher and was surprised when the gun was all locked up and non functional.
Other folks also forget there is a huge difference in shooting capability between shooting at a range and having to fire in defense of your life in a full crisis especially when it's totally unexpected. It's way different when the rounds can go both directions.
Hey Ripsnort. I expect to be up in your area again this spring / summer. I'll hold you to that! :D :cheers:
-
Standard weapon clearing drill Norwegian Army:
Step one: Make sure the weapon is pointing in a safe direction (always).
Step two: Remove the magazine.
Step three: Visually and/or physically (with your fingers) check that the chamber is empty.
Step four: Close the slide/bolt and pull the trigger while keeping the weapon pointing in a safe direction.
Is this clear enough? (after how many posts?)
Crystal thanks, Glocks are not a favorite for SOF or US conventional forces for a reason and this is one of them.
STEP 4 above was not intended to be the fail safe to ensure its a clear and safe weapon, its to take the weapon down and out of the firing postion AFTER you verified clear and safe by inspecting it visually and physically, it was NOT to be meant as a means of ensuring its clear and safe.
Your statement I quoted initially was "As long as there is a chance that there is a live round in the chamber no gun is safe, period. The only way to make sure is to pull the trigger in a safe direction and see what happens." The comment in italics is what I have heartburn with and its completely wrong no matter what gun you use.
-
Hey Ripsnort. I expect to be up in your area again this spring / summer. I'll hold you to that! :D :cheers:
I'd buy ya beer for life just based who you are Mav. :) I didn't specify how MANY, or intervals, etc. ;)
-
I'd buy ya beer for life just based who you are Mav. :) I didn't specify how MANY, or intervals, etc. ;)
Yeah, but only the good die young. I'm gonna be here a LOOOOONNNNGGG time. Run a tab...... :devil
-
ON another related subject, how many here fear going to public gun ranges these days?
There are so many new shooters it really scares the crap out of me.
Even though our local indoor ranges all require a 30 min safety re-cap (required by EVERYONE once a year) I still see stuff on the range that just makes me cringe. I've reported safety violations as well.
I just don't shoot as much as I used to because it's a good 45 min to an open range with no one around. I really don't 'trust my fellow shooter' any more. :old:
-
Yeah, but only the good die young. I'm gonna be here a LOOOOONNNNGGG time. Run a tab...... :devil
:old: :cheers:
-
Very interesting. Most of my experience with weapons, as a Brit, is through the military. The lack of safety and solid weapon handling drills among american recreational shooters, or perceived from my point of view, has always shocked me. I suppose coming from a military background, safety is obviously the most important thing about weapon handling (an ND can earn you jail time or a serious fine in the British Army).
I'm always amazed at how brazen some american shooters are when it comes to shooting safety, especially some of these YouTube vids, etc. One big problem with the american culture of shooting just for fun is that many seem to see their weapon as a toy or sporting item rather than a deadly weapon, which is instilled in you from day one in the military.
A lack of basic skills and drills was the failure here. I'm completely amazed to read stories of people testing head-space of rounds, with their rifle pointed towards a residential area. That's the sort of thing that should earn someone a life-time ban from ever owning a firearm.
-
A thought; Are Americans truly happy in the knowledge that a complete f****ng moron has the same right to bear arms as an intelligent person?
I love guns, and I love the fact that they are protected under american law. But surely even the most gun-crazed of you can accept that tighter gun controls are needed when idiots like these are allowed to own a deadly weapon. Even if those gun controls were a simple license you had to pass a safety test to apply for...
-
Oh boy. There is the end of the technical discussion.
-
Oh boy. There is the end of the technical discussion.
It was bound to happen eventualh :bhead
-
IIRC, the NYPD switched to the Glock 19 in 1996 and since then accuracy has plummeted.
On my department the shooting scores increased about 10-12% when we switched from revolvers to the Glock 21. The biggest increase was with the poor shooters, those of us that could shoot the revolver didn't see as much of an increase in accuracy. I'm not so sure that the accuracy is down as much as the higher capacity of the weapons has contributed to being able to shoot more rounds.
-
Americans seem to be happy having high school dropouts in their police force, so it isn't much of a stretch from there to letting any old halfwit own a gun
-
Tank-Ace, I believe the man in question shot himself in the hand not the face. I hope you do not take this as disrespectful, but I have several times in this thread tried to make my point which very specifically pertains to design, as Mr. Coombz says. If you are unwilling to make the effort to carefully read and comprehend what I am saying but instead type knee-jerk responses to a stimulus you think you are receiving then I fail to see how trying to discuss this further with you would be productive.
Sorry about that, was about half asleep when posting. I've only got around 13 hours of sleep total for the past three days.
-
Americans seem to be happy having high school dropouts in their police force, so it isn't much of a stretch from there to letting any old halfwit own a gun
Your either joking or ignorant.
SDPD average new higher is 28, with a bachelors degree, and military expreience (usually a combat tour)
-
Oh boy. There is the end of the technical discussion.
Didn't mean it to be, apologies. Like I say, I love guns and I think it's great that America protects the right to bear arms. Stories like some posted on the first page make me shudder though...
-
Your either joking or ignorant.
SDPD average new higher is 28, with a bachelors degree, and military expreience (usually a combat tour)
He's trolling. It's a pastime of his.
-
hehe :aok
I like how joining the military is somehow an indication of intelligence, rather than the complete opposite
bravery, patriotism, selflessness...sure
intelligence? :) not so much
-
hehe :aok
I like how joining the military is somehow an indication of intelligence, rather than the complete opposite
bravery, patriotism, selflessness...sure
intelligence? :) not so much
Ok so it was option b with you then. Too bad.
I could literally give you dozens of reasons why its intellegent but im sure someone like u will still be so afraid of the risks and hardship that will be all you focus on.
Either your a disallusioned vet in which case, may u find peace
Or your just ignorant.
-
I imagine the irony of repeatedly calling me ignorant while posting with Tank Ace levels of broken English is lost on you, but I have to say I appreciate it :aok
Easy to see why you made the career choices you did, and I thank you for supporting and bearing out my comments :)
-
hehe :aok
I like how joining the military is somehow an indication of intelligence, rather than the complete opposite
bravery, patriotism, selflessness...sure
intelligence? :) not so much
I disagree.
-
I imagine the irony of repeatedly calling me ignorant while posting with Tank Ace levels of broken English is lost on you, but I have to say I appreciate it :aok
Easy to see why you made the career choices you did, and I thank you for supporting and bearing out my comments :)
Ahhhh i get your sig now.
Really a pity. I like a good debate with someone who can intellegently represent themselves :cheers:
-
Crystal thanks, Glocks are not a favorite for SOF or US conventional forces for a reason and this is one of them.
STEP 4 above was not intended to be the fail safe to ensure its a clear and safe weapon, its to take the weapon down and out of the firing postion AFTER you verified clear and safe by inspecting it visually and physically, it was NOT to be meant as a means of ensuring its clear and safe.
Your statement I quoted initially was "As long as there is a chance that there is a live round in the chamber no gun is safe, period. The only way to make sure is to pull the trigger in a safe direction and see what happens." The comment in italics is what I have heartburn with and its completely wrong no matter what gun you use.
Like I said YMMV on your side of the pond, but that is how it's done here, with all guns. Just so you know where I'm coming from, after my obligatory year as a conscript rifleman I served two years as a grenadier (a professional soldier rank you guys might call "specialist" or something similar), assistant instructor on the MG-3 and M2HB machine guns. During those two years the Glock 17 was my service weapon. After that I served one year in the Norwegian UN contingent in Bosnia in '95 as a rifleman and squad leader with my trusty old AG-3 (HK G-3). After than I left the army to study.
You have your way it seems, and we have ours.
-
Americans seem to be happy having high school dropouts in their police force, so it isn't much of a stretch from there to letting any old halfwit own a gun
You've just made a sweeping statement that simply is incorrect. My actual experience in the profession and living in the country says otherwise. Now if you have something of substance to add to the discussion, post away otherwise trolling like that simply confirms that you have zero credibility and it's better to simply ignore you entirely.
Schultz it is entirely satisfactory to check the loaded status of the firearm by opening the action. Simply pulling the trigger for that purpose is unnecessary and far more hazardous.
-
Americans seem to be happy having high school dropouts in their police force, so it isn't much of a stretch from there to letting any old halfwit own a gun
Your ignorance must be bliss to you. Most LEO's in the US need to have 60 college credits (2 years) to be able to be on the force. Not sure of the NYPD, but out here on the prairie of the mid-west that is the norm (but not absolute) ;)
As for the accuracy in a Glock vs a revolver, I can understand why some would shoot the auto loader better because of the short trigger pull once the gun is set in single action or in terms of a striker fired gun like the Glock. The longer double action pull of a revolver can certainly throw the weak handed person in to a wild grouping of shots. However, if the revolver is able to be cocked to single action than my bet is on the revolver because nothing breaks as clean and light as a S&W revolver save for maybe a Colt revolver. ;) I was lucky enough to be able to transition between the two without an issue for qualification and training purposes, my only problem was with my gorilla sized hands being a bit awkward while performing a speed load with the revolver. More than once I dropped by speed loader and had to forfeit 6 rounds during the time trials. :cry
-
I see the trolls are coming out of the woodwork.
On the point of safety and gun ownership my country does thing a bit differently than the U.S. (no surprise there ;)) I understand that firearms have a special place in American history and how your country was built back in the day. For better or worse guns are ingrained in your culture. America is somewhat unique in that respect.
However, many other countries also have a rich gun culture, mine included. Norway is the country that has the second most armed households per capita in the world; second only to Switzerland (due to their unique national guard system). The U.S. does have more guns in civilian ownership per capita though. Over here the number of guns a person can own is regulated by law.
Everyone can own a firearm here, as long as the person doesn't have a criminal record, and as long as the person's need for a weapon is real. By that I mean that the person is an active hunter or member of a gun club. If you just want something to hang on your wall or play with you can get a deactivated or blank-firing gun. The number of guns you can own is regulated by how active you are in your gun activities, especially for handguns. There are official requirements to how many competition events you have to participate in every year to keep your gun license.
There are of course obligatory safety courses and exams you must pass to get a license for any gun. To get a license for a shotgun or hunting rifle you need, in addition to safety courses, to pass a hunters course with exam. This course/exam must be repeated every year before hunting season. This exam is not easy and includes shooting at range against moving targets from a standing position.
If you ever meet a licensed big game hunter from Norway, he or she is a very able rifleman, and above all a very safe shooter. We have very few accidents involving firearms here, to the point that it's national news if someone gets hurt.
Typical hunters exam (target view):
http://videos.videopress.com/ccgzpoGb/mvi_0065_hd.mp4
Typical hunters exam (shooter view):
http://videos.videopress.com/HorvuCMO/mvi_0063_hd.mp4
That guy would not have passed on that try.
There are parts of our gun laws that I find unnecessarily restrictive, but I do agree that we need to screen out those that just can't use firearms safely. After all we don't allow people who can't pass a drivers exam to operate motor vehicles.
I know this is heretical to many Americans because of the special place firearms have in your culture, so I hope you'll forgive my blasphemy. :)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJHgYTi0By0
not only are people unsafe but litter bugs, I used to shoot here growing up, I guess it got closed someboby got killed up there from what I read. One time we went up to shoot and everyone was cleaning up the range because the city of colorado springs was going to shut it down if it werent cleaned THAT day. Glad we spent 10 hours cleaning it up :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUxjiQec3UA
this is the kind of retards that used to go up there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aiVqrxCaRI
-
I will have to find someone with a Glock but untill then and after I shoot one there's no way I give up my S&W 9mm for one .
-
You do realize that the article you listed does not indicate that the Glock per se is a cause or contributor to poor shooting. It along with the other two weapons listed in the article are all modified to have 12 lb trigger pulls for NYPD use. The author's premise is that the trigger pull is excessively strong to allow "good" accuracy. I tend to agree, as far as target shooting is concerned. I am not a fan of a light SA trigger on a combat weapon, especially when the operator is expected to have more than one task to do when holding the weapon. It's one thing to just be shooting it, it's another when you have to chase someone or secure the person(s) in a hurry.
It's a fallacy to think that just because a person is a LEO and qualified with a weapon that they can really shoot well. Lots of cops are not gun people. I would say that in the case of NYC given the prevalent bias of the area towards firearms that almost all of the NYPD are not "gun people". I've known some that never fired their weapon unless it was for annual (or even less frequent) qualification. I talked to one armorer in my own Department who had to work on a gun one of the detectives carried. It fired 3 of 5 shots and couldn't be unloaded. The cartridges had been inside the gun so long the brass corroded and "welded" themselves to the chamber. Another "idiot" actually believed the wives tale that you could clean a stainless steel revolver in the dishwasher and was surprised when the gun was all locked up and non functional.
Other folks also forget there is a huge difference in shooting capability between shooting at a range and having to fire in defense of your life in a full crisis especially when it's totally unexpected. It's way different when the rounds can go both directions.
I'm with you, I'm not fond of light trigger pulls on combat or LEO guns either. I was an LEO for 6 years, I understand fully the importance of a long enough and heavy enough trigger pull on a firearm. I think the issues with the NYPD having such high volumes of shots fired and such a low hit % comes from 3 things: the abundance of ammo, a heavier than typical trigger pull, and most importantly the lack of training. I can't imagine trying to fire a Glock with a 12lb trigger pull, I have a Webley Mk IV in .38/200 and that has a 13lb trigger pull but it is as smoooooth as can be. There is nothing smooth about a Glock trigger.
FWIW, I'd say at least 3/4th of the deputies I worked with did not shoot any other time than their twice yearly qualification, it was obvious. I've been shooting most of my life (I really got active when I turned 18 back in 1991), and I'm one of those guys that can usually pick up a firearm I've never shot and out shoot the owner of that specific gun. I simply "get it". I've shot enough over the years on my own, had enough LEO training, and let every minute I spent at Thunder Ranch sink in. I have enough muscle memory and good habits that I have full confidence in my ability to use firearms. You're exactly correct, just because someone is a LEO or has military experience doesn't mean jack. We had a guy that could barely get his Glock out of his holster during one qualification shoot because he simply never worked the thumb break and the holster had crud inside enough to cause pressure on the gun to the point of almost having to cut it out. Needless to say the chief firearms instructor was pissed.
Ultimately, it is obviously very important to have the most training in firearms as a person can stomach especially if they handle or may need to handle a firearm in their line of work (not to mention the magnitude of responsibility of simply owning a firearm), however I've seen the "high speed Mr. Tacti-Coolio stud" fold when faced with adversity, and the lowly pud who barely qualifies and looks like Barney Fife or Rosco P. Coltrane step right up and cover my arse when facing a threat.... ask me who I'd rather have at my side? It isn't about how good a person shoots the paper target, it is about the ability of the person to use that gun when the adrenaline is flowing, seconds count, and a life is on the line. That is not a fun position to be in.
-
I will have to find someone with a Glock but untill then and after I shoot one there's no way I give up my S&W 9mm for one .
Do not be afraid to say no to the Glock kool-aid. Seriously. They are no better than most everything else out there, especially a S&W. Do you have a 59xx, or a M&P? Just curious. :D
-
Sorry about that, was about half asleep when posting. I've only got around 13 hours of sleep total for the past three days.
No need to apologise. I have had to adapt to this forum and make a sort of cut off point for myself otherwise King's law applies. :salute
Get to bed! :old:
-
Do not be afraid to say no to the Glock kool-aid. Seriously. They are no better than most everything else out there, especially a S&W. Do you have a 59xx, or a M&P? Just curious. :D
The 59xx .
-
Well, it was a good technical discussion until someone(s) had to pee in the pool (Mr.Biggles/Coombs)
Outta this thread. :bolt:
-
Yes great, the more input and opinions the better. :salute
\
Safe and not safe are absolutes .The decocker can not be considered safer. The argument of safer could only exist in a situation where both guns are loaded and pointed in an unsafe direction. Both guns would be not safe. Not knowing if the gun is loaded and in a safe direction would mean some one has already broken two safety rules. This would again make the gun not safe.
The design can not make anything safer were the individual can make mistakes.
Salute
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJHgYTi0By0
not only are people unsafe but litter bugs, I used to shoot here growing up, I guess it got closed someboby got killed up there from what I read. One time we went up to shoot and everyone was cleaning up the range because the city of colorado springs was going to shut it down if it werent cleaned THAT day. Glad we spent 10 hours cleaning it up :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUxjiQec3UA
this is the kind of retards that used to go up there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aiVqrxCaRI
Closed it down but the good news followed. Ft. Carson broke ground on a public range near gate 20. Will cost a few bucks to shoot there but it will be much safer with range officers. The money will go to a charity for wounded warriors.
-
Just a couple more technical questions, if I may. What kind of force is needed on the firing pin to actually set off the primer? I see Pete over at The Armory Channel do his pencil test all the time and it looks like a fair bit.
Secondly what is the meaning of 'safe' on the safety catch to you? Do those of you that carry these weapons generally trust these mechanical safety features such as decockers, cocked indicators (hammers or protruding strikers), chamber indicators, firing pin blocks while you carry?
Thirdly in stripping the weapon do you simply rack the slide multiple times and then dry fire or are you also making a visual check of the chamber and giving it a little feel around with your little finger?
-
4. Tro ikke at et sikret våpen kan behandles som om det ikke var ladd.
(4. Do not think secured weapon can be treated as if it was not loaded.)
No mechanical safety device is 100% foolproof. They can break or wear out, just like any other machine.
-
Smokin Loon, You got it exactly. It's a totally different situation when the elephant shows up. Some can shoulder the load, others can't through no conscious choice of their own. You learn to tell who is a reliable back up and who is just filling the space (or uniform) at the time. :salute
nrshida, that is a different kind of question since not all primers are made equally. In the US CCI has a reputation for having "hard" primers. They take more force to operate than say a Remington does. On the other hand I got some Israeli sub gun 9mm a couple decades ago. My Glock made only 1 out of 3 go bang on one hit where it was dead reliable on everything else. They had put in some darn hard primers in their, probably because a sub gun typically fires from an open bolt so you have all of the mass of the bolt behind the primer strike, not just the striker. My buddies S&W didn't do much better. I ended up selling the majority of the case of ammo to a buddy who did have a sub gun.
Lots of folks made a reliable revolver unreliable by backing off the main hammer spring tension screw (ala S&W revolvers) to make the trigger easier to operate. That can be very ungood if you really need it to go bang. It's better to have the trigger smoothed out rather than reduce the power going to the primer strike.
I don't know what the actual newton or impact pressure needed is but it's pretty substantial to be totally reliable.
I'm not a Glock fan boy per se, but I do have a lot of experience with them since it was my duty and off duty weapon for more than a decade. I was limited to what was authorized to carry. I learned to deal with it's shortcomings and they always performed, usually better than I can shoot. They are not my favorite but they are a long long way from the worst I've fired. I've also competed with wheel guns and 1911's and their clones. Each style has it's good and bad points. You just decide what works for you and use them.
Between the PD and the Army I've had the chance to pop caps in multiple styles of weaponry up to and including indirect fire major caliber launchers. It's great when you don't have to pay for the ammo, especially when the 105's cost more than $150 each and you go through pallets of them.... :D
The tools are not the issue, it's the operator and that goes for everything from a rock up to the most advanced weapon system in the world. To date, the tools are not self actuating. It takes a person to operate or screw up with them.
-
Thanks for all the information gun fellows. I have been recently tinkering with some elements of pistol design, mostly feeding and cycling, the core operation and especially the safety features. The information in this thread about people's experiences and knowledge is invaluable.
:salute
-
Thanks for all the information gun fellows. I have been recently tinkering with some elements of pistol design, mostly feeding and cycling, the core operation and especially the safety features. The information in this thread about people's experiences and knowledge is invaluable.
:salute
Bottom line is it doesn't matter what kind of operating system, safety devices, etc. the firearm has...some bonehead will manage to have a negligent (no such thing as accidental) discharge. The ND will occur because he improperly handled the weapon, not because of some failing of the weapon.
-
Bottom line is it doesn't matter what kind of operating system, safety devices, etc. the firearm has...some bonehead will manage to have a negligent (no such thing as accidental) discharge. The ND will occur because he improperly handled the weapon, not because of some failing of the weapon.
That may be true, but I still find most of the present solutions very bonehead-unfriendly. Everybody has the potential for moments of boneheadness. My work isn't really a serious commercial endeavour, more of an exercise. I have some ethical reservations designing weapons anyway, but you never know what you might come up with.
-
With this video...I don't think anyone is safe with folks like this owning weapons lol. (This video alone proves that only the neglect of the owner will cause a misfire 99% of the time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmtOEI7sAAs
-
Life is not bonehead safe. God must love fools and idiots, he made so many......
No matter how hard you try to make something fool proof, a bigger fool WILL rise to the occasion and hurt / kill him / herself. The only thing more common than elemental hydrogen in the universe is stupidity. Never under estimate the power of human stupidity.
Trite phrases, yes. They do have more than a grain of truth to them.
-
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
I'll debate you on the hydrogen one though. Dark matter is also more common than hydrogen. Unless - brainstorm! - dark matter IS human stupidity. It would explain SOOOO much!
-
With this video...I don't think anyone is safe with folks like this owning weapons lol. (This video alone proves that only the neglect of the owner will cause a misfire 99% of the time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmtOEI7sAAs
That video is full of a lot of different things. I feel sorry for the people who were firing guns that had never been properly taught.
-
With this video...I don't think anyone is safe with folks like this owning weapons lol. (This video alone proves that only the neglect of the owner will cause a misfire 99% of the time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmtOEI7sAAs
:O
wow.......the young kid....holy crap
anyone know what kind of rifle at the 6-7 minute mark? that thing is serious
-
With this video...I don't think anyone is safe with folks like this owning weapons lol. (This video alone proves that only the neglect of the owner will cause a misfire 99% of the time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmtOEI7sAAs
1:07 = Why your should always check the timing and head space on the M2HB. Lucky it didn't blow up in his face.
-
Most of those I hadn't seen before... I think the one that might actually cause me to turn my pants brown is the rocket launcher that just spits it out and it falls at your feet. You actually have time to realize what is happening, unlike some of the more violent failures in there.
In gun safety one of the first things I was taught about shooting was never to shoot at a hard, flat surface. Yet you go to a range, and find a lot of hard, flat surfaces in the form of metallic silhouettes. Always confused me.
Somewhere in the middle of that video, there was one I had seen before, where a guy was shooting a .50 cal rifle at a silhouette and you see him shoot, and right around the time the sound of the hit gets back to him his ear protectors get knocked off by a ricochet.
I realize bullets do some strange, strange things (anybody see the Mythbusters with the 9mms spinning on the ice after being shot into it? I'dve bet a lot of money that was fake) but, how is it physically possible for a ricochet to go right back along its path to point of origin? I just can't see how it would bounce straight back.
Wiley.
-
I realize bullets do some strange, strange things (anybody see the Mythbusters with the 9mms spinning on the ice after being shot into it? I'dve bet a lot of money that was fake)
Wiley.
That 9mm in ice is factual. I'll take your money, thanks.
-
That 9mm in ice is factual. I'll take your money, thanks.
Me too. Try it sometimes, just follow the 10 rules of firearm safety before you start shooting. :aok
-
That 9mm in ice is factual. I'll take your money, thanks.
Oh I know, and I understand how it happens, but looking at the initial videos, I didn't believe it.
-
What a bonehead Dad...
http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Boy-shoots-himself-with-a-BB-gun-dad-uses-utility/LX7DjWVtoUab7-cLXaVK3Q.cspx (http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Boy-shoots-himself-with-a-BB-gun-dad-uses-utility/LX7DjWVtoUab7-cLXaVK3Q.cspx)
-
anyone know what kind of rifle at the 6-7 minute mark? that thing is serious
I think its called a t-rex .577 friggin awsome although I wouldnt shoot it without a muzzlebreak :old:
that just goes to show how STUPID people CAN be
-
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-hunter-injured-bullet-ricochets-rock-local-hunter-injured-after-bullet-ricochets-off-rock-20111208,0,3629376.column
midway
-
I think its called a t-rex .577 friggin awsome although I wouldnt shoot it without a muzzlebreak :old:
that just goes to show how STUPID people CAN be
that thing is a beast :aok
-
NEVER EVER PULL A TRIGGER ON A GUN TO ENSURE ITS EMPTY/SAFE...... NEVER!!
You always open the action and verify clear and safe by ensuring that the source of ammo is removed... Magazine, shotgun shells, etc.... then verify the chamber is empty. You will do this step each time you pick up a gun no matter if you think its unloaded or not.
By programming yourself to pull the trigger on a gun you assume to be empty will get you or someone else killed. Its poor weapons handling on your part and piss poor training. I highly recommend you get proper training from a credible source.
To the OP, there is no such thing as an "Accident" when it deals with guns, its only negligence.
Mmmwhahahahahahah...did I start this thread? It IS a poorly designed disassembly procedure! Period! (in my opinion) What are the percentages of people injured with an accidental discharge of Glock VS other major brands? was the Glock being disassembled? What percentage of injuries were during disassembly? If these stats are in the clouds, a proven argument is elusive, at best. :rofl
-
Much of it had to do with marketing, maintenance, and ease of usage. A Glock is an idiot's gun, *anyone* can pick it up and operate it. There is no safety, no de-cock lever, no hammer, no single or double action, it required minimal maintenance (much of it is plastic). Glock came in and undercut S&W in a major way in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Ultimately they went to the extreme to get government contracts.
There is a reason LEO's have the worst hit ratio in history right now. This can be proven easily once the stats of the NYPD are examined. When they carried the S&W Mod 10 revolver in .38 Special the average shot fired in an engagement was less than 4. Now it is over 10. IIRC, the NYPD switched to the Glock 19 in 1996 and since then accuracy has plummeted.
Here is a good article on the NYPD version of the Glock 19: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/
This also means anyone able to disarm you with pure physical force can shoot you pretty easy even if he ain't that bright.... :uhoh
-
A chamber indicator only tells you that there is a cartridge case in the chamber. It does not tell you if the gun is cocked, the cartridge is empty, loaded or a dummy cartridge. FWIW even in a gen 1 Glock the extractor sticks out a bit and you can tell the chamber is occupied by running your finger along it. It doesn't work on all makes of semi auto's. Some do "show" a bit of change in extractor position and others like the standard 1911 have totally enclosed extractors.
I should also tell you that the gen 1 through 3 Glock plastic case (I haven't seen any gen 4 yet) that the gun came in was made in a manner that it requires the trigger to be pulled to fit inside. There is a plastic protrusion in the base of the container that sticks up into the trigger guard and won't fit unless the trigger is to the rear.
As far as telling if a weapon is loaded s concerned it's simple, check it manually by opening the action. That works for revolvers, semi auto, bolt actions, crack barrel, lever action or slide action. It does not work with muzzle loaders. To me the only "safed" weapon is one that is in pieces on a mat. If it has been taken apart it can't fire. ALL other weapons must be checked by the person handling it to determine it's loaded / unloaded status. I don't care if the clerk in a gun store hands me the gun after checking the chamber. I will still open the action and look for myself. Otherwise the gun is loaded as far as I am concerned and is handled as such. Even after I have unloaded the gun I will still try to insure the muzzle never covers anyone while I am handling it.
If a Glock slide is closed, It is cocked, XD springfields as well. The XD chambered indicator tells you a round is in the chamber & if not already fired, is still cocked. My early model XD had a sectional trigger similar to a glock in function, but if I remember, the trigger felt loose after firing (sans resistance). the Glock, if closed, is cocked, unless after dry firing on an empty chamber. :old:
-
hehe :aok
I like how joining the military is somehow an indication of intelligence, rather than the complete opposite
bravery, patriotism, selflessness...sure
intelligence? :) not so much
I just thought you were an ARSE before, Now I know you're one. :ahand
-
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents) :salute
-
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents) :salute
very low but not very comforting to the 613 that died. like everything else 1 is too many. I work at a steel mill. we have some of the lowest industrial accidents in the us, however I dont want to be 1 of the few that die every year as sure has hell wont comfort me.
midway
-
With this video...I don't think anyone is safe with folks like this owning weapons lol. (This video alone proves that only the neglect of the owner will cause a misfire 99% of the time).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmtOEI7sAAs
Barrel on the .50 cal just falls off :rofl.
-
Barrel on the .50 cal just falls off :rofl.
It's blown off. Wrong spacing and/or timing. He's lucky this didn't happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FC7m0pBdMk
-
It's blown off. Wrong spacing and/or timing. He's lucky this didn't happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FC7m0pBdMk
He probably turned it all the way and did the simple "2 click tick" instead of checking after reassembly. We actually just finished using the .50 this weekend along with our other heavy weapons.
-
If a Glock slide is closed, It is cocked, XD springfields as well. The XD chambered indicator tells you a round is in the chamber & if not already fired, is still cocked. My early model XD had a sectional trigger similar to a glock in function, but if I remember, the trigger felt loose after firing (sans resistance). the Glock, if closed, is cocked, unless after dry firing on an empty chamber. :old:
If a Glock slide is closed it is only indicating that the slide is closed. It is not cocked and does not get "cocked" until the trigger poves the striker rearward. It is possible and necessary to have the slide closed with the trigger pulled for dis assembly. On both the XD and Glock the weapon does not come to full cock until the trigger is pulled.
-
If a Glock slide is closed it is only indicating that the slide is closed. It is not cocked and does not get "cocked" until the trigger poves the striker rearward. It is possible and necessary to have the slide closed with the trigger pulled for dis assembly. On both the XD and Glock the weapon does not come to full cock until the trigger is pulled.
So the Glock is sort of half double action?
And you say the trigger must be pulled for disassembly?
-
I guess I'm pretty safe. I don't like Glocks and I ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded.
-
First thing my father told me when he give me my first gun was to all ways treat it like it was loaded and all way's keep it pointed to the ground . 45 year's later and a many beer's it seem's to work .
-
So the Glock is sort of half double action?
Yes and no. The striker is held back just short of the opening in the slide for the firing pin to protrude before the trigger is pulled. The striker is pulled to the rear when the trigger is pulled back, then released as the trigger bar drops down releasing the striker to go forward and hit the primer of the cartridge, assuming it is loaded. The trigger also depresses the striker blocking pin to allow the striker to move all the way forward. Unless and until the trigger is pulled, the striker blocking pin blocks the forward travel of the striker in much the same way as the firing pin block does on a series 80 1911 style pistol.
The term double action presumes the existence of a hammer. In rather crude and not quite correct terminology it is "similar" to a DA in that the trigger action is necessary for the striker or hammer to be moved to full cock by the trigger in order to fire. Like a standard bolt action rifle, there just ain't no hammer in a Glock. Just the spring that powers the striker forward with enough energy to fire the primer.
And you say the trigger must be pulled for disassembly?
Yup, yes, si, da, yeah, oui, hai, ja. Does that make it clear? :ahand :huh :bhead :furious
-
freaking double post........ :furious
-
Yes very clear, many thanks. Some people in this thread have been saying you didn't have to pull the trigger. I'm only trying to understand further.
-
No you don't have to pull the trigger during disassembly. You're not trying to understand further; you're trying to be an arse, and you're succeeding.
-
No you don't have to pull the trigger during disassembly. You're not trying to understand further; you're trying to be an arse, and you're succeeding.
:rolleyes:
It is possible and necessary to have the slide closed with the trigger pulled for dis assembly. On both the XD and Glock the weapon does not come to full cock until the trigger is pulled.
Look, someone just tell me which is it.
-
If shultz is saying you have to pull the trigger PRIOR to Glock disassembly, meaning removal of the slide, then he's correct. Being pedantic, certainly. To me, since it is a required step in the disassembly process it is part of disassembling the pistol.
http://glockparts.com/Content.aspx?PAGE=Glock%20Disassembly
STEP 1
REMOVE THE MAGAZINE AND CLEAR CHAMBER. DO THIS BY LOCKING BACK THE SLIDE. BE SURE THERE IS NOT A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER BY VISUAL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION. RELEASE THE SLIDE AND POINT THE PISTOL IN A SAFE DIRECTION. PULL THE TRIGGER. THEN GRASP THE PISTOL WITH YOUR THUMB UNDER THE SLIDE AND YOUR FINGERS OVER THE TOP OF THE REAR PART OF THE SLIDE.
PULL BACK APPROXIMATELY ¼ INCH.PULL DOWN ON THE SLIDE LOCK BY GRASPING IT ON BOTH SIDES WITH YOUR THUMB AND FINGER.
PULL DOWN ON THE SLIDE LOCK WHILE RELEASING THE SLIDE FORWARD. (IF YOU HAVE A NEW YORK TRIGGER YOU WILL NEED TO PULL THE TRIGGER AGAIN AT THIS POINT). BE CAREFUL TO NOT LET THE SLIDE FALL OFF ONTO A HARD SURFACE, AS IT COULD DAMAGE THE GUIDE RING.
STEP 2
REMOVE THE SLIDE AND TAKE THE RECOIL SPRING ASSEMBLY OUT. THEN REMOVE THE BARREL. YOU NOW HAVE THE PISTOL IN THE FIELD STRIPPED CONDITION.
-
Lolz, what the heck is a New York trigger?
Thanks for that Maverick.
-
Here is a link to a PDF copy of the armorers manual. It covers dis assembly, see page 12 specifically for the instruction to pull the trigger before removing slide.
http://stevespages.com/pdf/glock_armorers_manual_update.pdf
When it comes down to it, a simple google search can help take care of pedantic nit picking, except for the obsessed nit pickers. Especially those who are legends in their own minds......
NY trigger. Has 2 parts actually. The first part is the trigger transfer bar that raises the trigger pull to the NYPD approved 12 LB level vs the stock factory 5.5 lb pull. The second is an option bit that gives you a spring feel that attempt to mimic the feel you have in pulling the long DA trigger on a DA revolver. DA being Double Action. The armorers manual has a pic of it I think. I didn't bother to look at it all.
If you want to make the glock as hard to shoot well as humanly possible those are the modifications you want.
-
If shultz is saying you have to pull the trigger PRIOR to Glock disassembly, meaning removal of the slide, then he's correct. Being pedantic, certainly. To me, since it is a required step in the disassembly process it is part of disassembling the pistol.
http://glockparts.com/Content.aspx?PAGE=Glock%20Disassembly
STEP 1
REMOVE THE MAGAZINE AND CLEAR CHAMBER. DO THIS BY LOCKING BACK THE SLIDE. BE SURE THERE IS NOT A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER BY VISUAL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION. RELEASE THE SLIDE AND POINT THE PISTOL IN A SAFE DIRECTION. PULL THE TRIGGER. THEN GRASP THE PISTOL WITH YOUR THUMB UNDER THE SLIDE AND YOUR FINGERS OVER THE TOP OF THE REAR PART OF THE SLIDE.
PULL BACK APPROXIMATELY ¼ INCH.PULL DOWN ON THE SLIDE LOCK BY GRASPING IT ON BOTH SIDES WITH YOUR THUMB AND FINGER.
PULL DOWN ON THE SLIDE LOCK WHILE RELEASING THE SLIDE FORWARD. (IF YOU HAVE A NEW YORK TRIGGER YOU WILL NEED TO PULL THE TRIGGER AGAIN AT THIS POINT). BE CAREFUL TO NOT LET THE SLIDE FALL OFF ONTO A HARD SURFACE, AS IT COULD DAMAGE THE GUIDE RING.
STEP 2
REMOVE THE SLIDE AND TAKE THE RECOIL SPRING ASSEMBLY OUT. THEN REMOVE THE BARREL. YOU NOW HAVE THE PISTOL IN THE FIELD STRIPPED CONDITION.
That's my point, very clearly put. Clearing the gun is something you should always do before disassembling any fiream. You don't have to pull the trigger while having your other hand manipulate the slide or any other part of the gun during the dissasembly process (like the person in the OP's post did to his misfortune). Nrshida's assertion that the Glock is "a profoundly stupid design" is just an inept characterization made from a position of ignorance; no doubt he'll continue to defend his position though.
-
Maverick, do you think the Glock is "a profoundly stupid design"?
I had a Glock for two years and I never managed to shoot something or someone I didn't aim for.
-
Glock is one of the finest pieces of design for a handgun ever created. I would argue it is the most revolutionary and perhaps most iconic design since the 1911. Springfield and S&W and many other manufacturers have essentially copied Glock in many of their recent guns.
I own a Glock 22 and 27. The 27 is perfect for concealed carry. Where else would you get 10 x .40 cal rounds in a small package like that? And the 22 is just a monster.
-
I said it was a profoundly stupid design feature.
No doubt you will continue to be a pedantic and insulting poster when you encounter someone with a different opinion to yours.
-
I said it was a profoundly stupid design feature.
I say that is an inept characterization made from a position of ignorance. The Glock is one of the safest handguns ever made.
-
I say that is an inept characterization made from a position of ignorance. The Glock is one of the safest handguns ever made.
And your opinion, and it's appropriate weight, is duly noted.
Are you incorrectly quoting me because you misread what I typed or as a technique to devalue an opinion which differs from yours?
-
if you guys are gonna purse fight atleast dumb it down some.
-
Maverick, do you think the Glock is "a profoundly stupid design"?
I had a Glock for two years and I never managed to shoot something or someone I didn't aim for.
I have carried a Glock both on and off duty for more than 10 years when I was a Police Officer. I have carried one for quite some time after that as well. On the other hand it was not my only choice for carry, when I had the option after retiring. I have also carried a revolver and a 1911. If I am going to carry a semi auto for concealed carry I prefer the Glock over the 1911. Now that does not mean I don't LIKE a 1911, I do. I just don't like carrying one cocked and locked in an IWB carry. Personal preference only.
Is the Glock a safe weapon? Certainly. Is it totally fool proof? Nope. Nothing is totally foolproof including the fork you eat dinner with. Would I prefer that disassembly did not require pulling the trigger? Yup, but I understand it isn't possible and educated myself to be able to operate it properly. Do I consider it a design flaw? Nope, no more than I consider the need for hand propping a propeller driven aircraft is a design flaw when the battery is dead. That's just the way it is.
Machines, all of them, have good and bad points. It's up to the operators to deal with them properly.
-
That's pretty much how I feel about it as well.
/thread.
-
Maverick, do you think the Glock is "a profoundly stupid design"?
I had a Glock for two years and I never managed to shoot something or someone I didn't aim for.
Your arguing content with nrshida
Its circular reasoning and you can argue for an exhaustively long time. Safe and not safe are absolutes. My Glock is safe(reification but u get the idea). nrshida can not get safer than safe. design can not be stupid. It is only an individual that can be safe or not safe.
Its only safe if its safe . "the design is safer" is a begging the question circular argument. plus a few more fallacies .
Its not safer for anyone that its not safe for. The gun would already have to be loaded and pointed in an unsafe direction.
salut
-
That's pretty much how I feel about it as well.
/thread.
Alas a hollow and irrelevant victory for Captain Pedantic. My comments pertained to the necessity of dry firing the weapon prior to stripping. Not the safety of carrying the weapon.
-
That you must dry fire the weapon before field stripping it is just a tad irrelevent though, isn't it? I mean all arguing about the glock's design asside, the fact remains that a round was left chambered in the weapon.
Even if the stripping process for some reason required you to point the weapon at your face and pull the trigger, you could still be reasonably confident that you wouldn't spatter your brains all over the wall as long as you make sure the chamber is clear and the magazine is removed.
-
If a Glock slide is closed it is only indicating that the slide is closed. It is not cocked and does not get "cocked" until the trigger poves the striker rearward. It is possible and necessary to have the slide closed with the trigger pulled for dis assembly. On both the XD and Glock the weapon does not come to full cock until the trigger is pulled.
It's not much of a movement. It does not feel like a DA auto. I would have to see a split view to understand the mechanics...No never mind. The XD has a pin which I remember sticking out of the back of the slide which indicates Firing pin in cocked position. After dry firing it was no longer protruding. :huh
-
No you don't have to pull the trigger during disassembly. You're not trying to understand further; you're trying to be an arse, and you're succeeding.
Uncalled for...he was only giving what he was getting. Play nice & other play nice back to you...remember grade school? :noid
-
If you use the definition of "stupid design" as it is directly related to statistical data of Glock owners/users vs number which had 1. accidental discharges 2. AD w/ injuries 3. AD w/ deaths & compare that to other popular pistols, then one could assume it is a Stupid-(poorly conceived)-design.
-
Mmmwhahahahahahah...did I start this thread? It IS a poorly designed disassembly procedure! Period!
No such thing as a poorly designed disassembly procedure. It has a disassembly procedure. Follow it and it is safe 100% of the time.
Only a human can poorly follow the procedure.
Try disassembly of a ruger mark 22 pistol.
If you pull the trigger and there is a bullet in the chamber it is designed to fire 100% of the time.
Your not following the disassembly procedure if there is still a bullet in the chamber and it is pointed in an unsafe direction.
Your following the firing procedure.
Sir your logic is flawed, period.
:salute
-
That you must dry fire the weapon before field stripping it is just a tad irrelevent though, isn't it?
It's remarkable how agitated people can become when they think you are criticising their favourite product while at the same time completely failing to understand the underlying point that is drawing the criticism.
The design feature in Tank-Ace's quote is questionable in my opinion because it relies on a rigourous procedure to be followed by the operator and unfortunately human beings are demonstrably poor at doing so. Despite all the superfluous comments to dismiss this point I think you / we all accept this potential failing in the man / machine relationship instinctively, since I have no doubt you all point the weapon in a safe direction when dry firing.
Uncalled for...
I shouldn't pay too much attention to GScholz, he just has a disproportionately large ego which announces by needing to be seen to be right all the time.
-
It's remarkable how agitated people can become when they think you are criticising their favourite product while at the same time completely failing to understand the underlying point that is drawing the criticism.
The design feature in Tank-Ace's quote is questionable in my opinion because it relies on a rigourous procedure to be followed by the operator and unfortunately human beings are demonstrably poor at doing so. Despite all the superfluous comments to dismiss this point I think you / we all accept this potential failing in the man / machine relationship instinctively, since I have no doubt you all point the weapon in a safe direction when dry firing.
I shouldn't pay too much attention to GScholz, he just has a disproportionately large ego which announces by needing to be seen to be right all the time.
All humans make mistakes NOT all humans make mistakes with a GLOCK. The design may have more steps or different procedure. You have to apply your argument to all firearms including the "safer" design . It is clear that your argument relies on humans making mistakes.
When you REMOVE humans make mistakes from your argument then you can clearly see that all guns are SAFE. Therefore there is no way to claim any gun is safer. Therefore you must apply humans make mistakes to all firearms not just the Glock or any other with a different design.
"Relies on a rigorous procedure" is subjective and is not known to be true for anyone that its not rigorous for.
The Glock relies on a procedure. A "different design" relies on a decocking procedure that when not followed fires the gun also.
I think this is your real argument ? : design = + or - humans making mistakes , therefore a better design is safer.
-
People are not well disposed to following rigourous procedures and getting it correct 100% of the time. Add in pressure of consequence, fatique, interuptions, miscommunication etc. and watch the errors escalate. I should have thought this statement was evident because neglegant discharges do happen.
A pistol is only inert until someone picks it up, at which point it becomes a dangerous component in an interaction between person and machine. Any design which encourages a mental muddling of controls and procedures increases the possibility of confusion and raises the likelyhood of an ND and I think that is unfortunate.
I can think of several alternate solutions which would tolerate an uncleared chamber during disassembly and would require no dry firing. I think this would increase safety without losing any functionality or encouraging poor weapon handling habbits. It would just be more fault tolerant.
I have no interest in product loyalty or how things have been made to this point. I think it is a shame that people are hurt or even killed as a result of someone making a very simple mistake when a more holistic or intelligent design could avoid that.
-
. Any design which encourages a mental muddling of controls and procedures increases the possibility of confusion and raises the likelyhood of an ND and I think that is unfortunate.
What is so "mentally muddling" about MAKING SURE THE DANG GUN IS UNLOADED, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, NOT JUST BEFORE DIS ASSEMBLY, BUT BEFORE HANDLING IT PERIOD?????
If someone shoots themselves while cleaning a firearm, it is THEIR fault, not the guns, design be damned.....
thank you, and have a nice day.
NOT
-
What is so "mentally muddling" about MAKING SURE THE DANG GUN IS UNLOADED, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, NOT JUST BEFORE DIS ASSEMBLY, BUT BEFORE HANDLING IT PERIOD?????
Then explain negligent discharges.
If someone shoots themselves while cleaning a firearm, it is THEIR fault, not the guns,
And what if they shoot someone else accidentally? Where is your implied Darwinistic self-solving resolution now?
design be damned.....
:rolleyes: Wow!
I think participating in this thread has now reached the point of diminishing returns. I have gained considerable insight not only into the technical matters but also the human element. Not the least of which has been an insight into this user group. This has helped my work. Many thanks :salute
-
Explain how an unloaded gun negligently discharges???
If I fail to properly check a firearm I am handling, and another person is shot due to my negligence it is MY fault. Even if accidentally, it is MY fault. Nothing "darwinistic" about it, its called r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y.
And just out of idle curiosity, Do you currently, or have you ever owned, handled or had any experience with firearms??
NOT
-
It should be noted the first step in taking any firearm apart for any reason is simple and universal. Make sure the gun is unloaded. It is the same for every brand, caliber and style of weapon.
Negligent discharges are the fault of the operator in every case except a pure mechanical malfunction of the weapon. Those are very rare, but much claimed by folks who failed to perform proper operation of the weapon.
-
It should be noted the first step in taking any firearm apart for any reason is simple and universal. Make sure the gun is unloaded. It is the same for every brand, caliber and style of weapon.
Negligent discharges are the fault of the operator in every case except a pure mechanical malfunction of the weapon. Those are very rare, but much claimed by folks who failed to perform proper operation of the weapon.
I believe that these are roughly the first words to ever come out of my grandfather's mouth when he introduced me to the care and handling of firearms at the age of 8 years old...
-
I get what nrshida is saying... designs can always be improved and the fact that the Glock does necessarily require the trigger to be pulled for disassembly does introduce a higher probability of a ND. But...
Making sure the chamber is clear is at the very foundation of proper safe handling of a firearm. No design feature can eliminate this requirement.
I prefer my design enhancements to be made on the actual usage side. Not to make sure some dummy doesn't try to disassemble a loaded weapon. YMMV. :salute
-
Simple truism. If you are handling a weapon and starting to do any maintenance on it without checking or taking steps to insure it is unloaded first, you are a certified idiot. You cannot design intelligence into the weapon superior to the person handling it.
-
People are not well disposed to following rigourous procedures and getting it correct 100% of the time. Add in pressure of consequence, fatique, interuptions, miscommunication etc. and watch the errors escalate. I should have thought this statement was evident because neglegant discharges do happen.
A pistol is only inert until someone picks it up, at which point it becomes a dangerous component in an interaction between person and machine. Any design which encourages a mental muddling of controls and procedures increases the possibility of confusion and raises the likelyhood of an ND and I think that is unfortunate.
I can think of several alternate solutions which would tolerate an uncleared chamber during disassembly and would require no dry firing. I think this would increase safety without losing any functionality or encouraging poor weapon handling habbits. It would just be more fault tolerant.
I have no interest in product loyalty or how things have been made to this point. I think it is a shame that people are hurt or even killed as a result of someone making a very simple mistake when a more holistic or intelligent design could avoid that.
Your using the same begging the question logical fallacies. You have to apply negligent design to all guns. There is no such thing as safer.
The first step is to clear the weapon. There is no design that can MUDDLE anything when the first step is to clear the gun.
How do you not see that you have not even gotten to the design yet and the mind is already muddled. The very first step is to clear the weapon. Or you are following the fire procedure.
I can just imagine you telling a group of kids that your gun is safer. You dont even see the logical fallacies let alone the dangers of your thinking.
If you get anyone to believe any gun is safer, then you have muddled their mind.
-
I love guns. I honestly do. I love learning how they work and I love using them for sport/target shooting. It's a lot of fun and releases a lot of stress.
I would never want to ban guns, however; I do ask that everyone be careful with them and be responsible. If you own a gun, protect it. Keep it safe and away from criminals.
Vanessa lost someone very close to her (a childhood friend) Wednesday and she found out this evening. He was shot. Would they have killed him even if they didn't have a gun? Yes.
It's so sad. The kid was only 21 years old and was visiting family. He lives in Alaska and they live here in Georgia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.beckfuneralhome.com/obits/obituary.php?id=236383
James Eugene Close, Jr., 21 of Lakemont, Georgia, passed away suddenly Wednesday, December 5, 2012.
He was born in Anchorage, Alaska and was the son of James Eugene Close, Sr. and Dawn Carla Gordon Close.
In addition to his parents, he is survived by a brother, Joel Grady R. Close and a sister, Triston Joleen Close.
James had worked as a turf keeper and attended the Job Corp for welding. He enjoyed camping, fishing, boxing and he loved kids.
The family will receive friends at Beck Funeral Home Monday, December 10, 2012 from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM.
Beck Funeral Home, in Clayton, Georgia, is in charge of the arrangements. If there are any questions, please call 706-782-9599. An online Memorial Register Book is available at www.beckfuneralhome.com.
-
No such thing as a poorly designed disassembly procedure. It has a disassembly procedure. Follow it and it is safe 100% of the time.
Only a human can poorly follow the procedure.
Try disassembly of a ruger mark 22 pistol.
If you pull the trigger and there is a bullet in the chamber it is designed to fire 100% of the time.
Your not following the disassembly procedure if there is still a bullet in the chamber and it is pointed in an unsafe direction.
Your following the firing procedure.
Sir your logic is flawed, period.
:salute
This is a free forum anyone can express an opinion, no matter how wrong you are :neener: :ahand
-
All humans make mistakes NOT all humans make mistakes with a GLOCK. The design may have more steps or different procedure. You have to apply your argument to all firearms including the "safer" design . It is clear that your argument relies on humans making mistakes.
When you REMOVE humans make mistakes from your argument then you can clearly see that all guns are SAFE. Therefore there is no way to claim any gun is safer. Therefore you must apply humans make mistakes to all firearms not just the Glock or any other with a different design.
"Relies on a rigorous procedure" is subjective and is not known to be true for anyone that its not rigorous for.
The Glock relies on a procedure. A "different design" relies on a decocking procedure that when not followed fires the gun also.
I think this is your real argument ? : design = + or - humans making mistakes , therefore a better design is safer.
NO ONE CLAIMED THIS! :ahand :noid
-
What a bunch of absolutists claiming un-provable emotionally charge nonsense. Statistically speaking....Purely statistically, if more accidental discharges/injuries are or could be shown, then it is a less safe design no matter how that makes you feel. Don't argue emotionally because you're smart enough not to screw up & shoot yourself. That's not what has been said. The Glock is a great pistol. I love mine. Unless you work for Glock marketing in some way, stop crying about our statements :cry It is still a great pistol. I would bet statistically it could be proven, more people have accident discharges with the Glock, than ANY OTHER MAJOR BRAND PISTOL. Does that mean I don't like my pistol? No! I just take strict precautions every time I handle it. JEEEZ! Let it go.... :noid
-
It's remarkable how agitated people can become when they think you are criticising their favourite product while at the same time completely failing to understand the underlying point that is drawing the criticism.
The design feature in Tank-Ace's quote is questionable in my opinion because it relies on a rigourous procedure to be followed by the operator and unfortunately human beings are demonstrably poor at doing so. Despite all the superfluous comments to dismiss this point I think you / we all accept this potential failing in the man / machine relationship instinctively, since I have no doubt you all point the weapon in a safe direction when dry firing.
I'm actually not a huge fan of Glock in particular, or pistols in general. Good for PDW's and security, but to me guns are primarily for hunting, which is why I perfer long-arms. That and any long-arm works as well as or better than a pistol for things like home-defense (12ga is more intimidating than a 9mm). And if the appocalypse comes, I'd rather deal with the crazies at a couple hundred yards with the 30-06, rather than let them get close and deal with them with the pistol.
Plus rifle-caliber rounds pack more stopping power.
But regardless, the reason the man was shot isn't because he had to follow a complex or tedious procedure, but because he failed to check to see if it was safe, which is something you should do before grabbing a firearm, yet alone disassembling one.
I mean blaming Glock is like blaming the PDU when some dumb-arse gets electrocuted rewiring a switch because he didn't kill the power at the circut breaker first. "You provided power to his home; how dare you!"
-
This is a free forum anyone can express an opinion, no matter how wrong you are
ditto :banana: :banana: :banana: :D
-
Statistically speaking....Purely statistically, if more accidental discharges/injuries are or could be shown, then it is a less safe design no matter how that makes you feel
it "could" be shown that more people own that design of gun.
Im up for it though show the statistics.......then we will make conclusions.
i remember reading an article that toyota camary's were the number one stolen vehicle in the U.S. I owned a camera and was worried that my car would get stolen just because it was a camary, until i learned that it was the most ubiquitous car on the planet. It had less thefts per 1000 cars than most others.
it was actually "safer" to own than many others.
this will be interesting.......
-
To all the design is not as safe guys out there.
How can you design the glock to be safer?
I would like to know if I keep a bullet in the chamber point it in unsafe direction and pull the trigger, how can you design it to be safer?
-
I would like to know if I keep a bullet in the chamber point it in unsafe direction and pull the trigger, how can you design it to be safer?
:huh
-
A man accidentally killed his 7 year old son in PA when the handgun he thought was unloaded discharged while he was getting into his truck. He had gone to a gun store to try to sell the handgun and a rifle and after being told by the shop that they didn't buy used guns returned to his vehicle. Apparently he had stowed the rifle and was reaching to put the handgun in the center counsel when it discharged. A seven year old boy is dead and a father who loved his son now has to live with the knowledge that a careless moment on his part killed his son.
Please always remember to treat every gun as though it is loaded. Safety first and above all else.
-
Please always remember to treat every gun as though it is loaded. Safety first and above all else.
X10,000,000,000,000
-
A man accidentally killed his 7 year old son in PA when the handgun he thought was unloaded discharged while he was getting into his truck. He had gone to a gun store to try to sell the handgun and a rifle and after being told by the shop that they didn't buy used guns returned to his vehicle. Apparently he had stowed the rifle and was reaching to put the handgun in the center counsel when it discharged. A seven year old boy is dead and a father who loved his son now has to live with the knowledge that a careless moment on his part killed his son.
Please always remember to treat every gun as though it is loaded. Safety first and above all else.
wow...that would be unbearable :(
-
wow...that would be unbearable :(
... and highly stupid
-
My 21 year old daughter is taking her CHL this weekend. Most important thing you can do is treat all gun as loaded.