Gun Accidents.....how safe are you? really?

[nrshida]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[W7LPNRICK]

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. 

[W7LPNRICK]

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? 

[W7LPNRICK]

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.

[Sonicblu]

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.

 

[nrshida]

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.

[FireDrgn]

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. 
 
 

[nrshida]

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.

[NOT]

. 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

[nrshida]

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.....

  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 

[NOT]

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 

[Maverick]

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.

[VonMessa]

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...

[Triton28]

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.