Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock

Have you seen any statistics to support that there are more accidental discharges with a Glock than other pistols? I know of two accidental discharges with revolvers ( of course they don't have a thumb safety either), one resulting in a fatality and the other in a leg wound. Careless gun handling can get you regardless of gun design.

^^^^^^^
I didn't create the term "Glock Leg", nor have I studied the statistics of accidental or negligent discharges.

I will not repeat (well, I guess I will . . . ) what I wrote about a job for you thumb to do, but the designs are what they are. Please note that what I said about holstering guns without a job for your thumb was that you need to be especially careful. I chose those words specifically to avoid relative terms (i.e. less safe, more dangerous) because they just cause arguments that miss the point.
Example: A great way to avoid an AD/ND with a pistol is to carry it with the chamber empty. Well, duh? But pulling a "less dangerous" pistol in a bad situation sure as hell could make the situation "more dangerous" for me! See? "Dangerous" is relative. What's the difference between "careful" and "especially careful"? I dunno. Again, I was trying to avoid arguments that miss the point.

The fact that there are steps you can take with some designs that you cannot take with others is what it is. That's not relative.

I don't know the specifics of the two AD/ND events with revolvers that you have first hand knowledge of ("know of".) All I know is I pin the hammer on a revolver when I holster it. I even do so with a single action revolver. It is a good habit and it is a final check that I'm not trying to holster a cocked single action.

Same thing with a DAO semi-auto. Same thing with a Glock if it has a "Gadget" on it. If there is a something to pin, it gets pinned. If a "cocked and locked" pistol, my thumb is holding the safety in the "safe" position. It is not so much that I'm worried about the safety getting pushed off, though that is possible. It is the fact that if I hold it "on", it is a final check that it has in fact been placed in the "on" position.

Another design that leaves your thumb with no job to do are revolvers with fully enclosed hammers. They do tend to have a longer and heavier trigger action than a striker fired pistol, but they still have no way for you to "pin" the action or insure a safety is engaged.

The best "pithy" description of striker fired, no thumb safety pistols I ever heard came from trainer Darryl Bolke, someone with a great deal of knowledge and experience. He said, "I handle them like rattlesnakes." FWIW, there were times in his career when he carried a Glock.
He has also written some very thoughtful stuff about "street triggers", but that is another subject.

There is no arguing your observation that careless gun handling can get you regardless of gun design. I agree with it absolutely. I'm sure people got accidentally killed with flintlock pistols.

Edit to add: To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't carry a Glock, or anything else they want to carry. We all hope the people who handle guns in our presence know their gun and how to handle it safely. For that matter, ourselves as well.

lMAO

Ugly but dependable work mule.

Or the red headed stepchild 😂

It's a Glock world.. period.

My department, Columbus P.D., did a test and evaluation on several pistols in 2006 to replace the aging S&W 4506s that we were issued in 1990. They decided on the S&W M&P in 40 S&W. The main reason this pistol was chosen over the Glock 22 .40 S&W was the fear of negligent discharges when pulling the Glock's trigger to disassemble for cleaning. The M&P feels as good in my hand as any pistol I've ever held, I just don't trust it. Sometimes it wouldn't lock open on an empty magazine. sometimes it would slam closed when a full mag was inserted. Minor stuff? Maybe, but I like my firearms to work like they're supposed to. Because I was assigned to a covert unit, I was allowed to carry my Glock 27, or my department owned covert gun, a Gen 2 Glock 23. Later this year, I hear that CPD will transition to the S&W M&P in 9mm. The reason? Easier to handle for "Smaller framed officers" I'm pretty sure they mean women. I have total faith in my Glock pistols to perform as advertised!


Ron

Signature line of one of the posters on the 1911 forums...

"Liking a Glock is a Version of Stockholm Symdrome. Nobody likes it but they get used to it in time."

My line...... "Life if too short to go through it with an ugly gun..."

That said I do like the G19/3...have owned a bunch of other Glocks and have shot most of the models but really didn't care for any of them but the 19...just a good balance of compactness, power, magazine capacity and recoil control...

Always interesting the guys that truly think Glock pistols won't choke. Glock is as reliable as any other modern good quality semi auto. No more, no less.

I've got nine that have never jammed. One came from the factory with a defective part. They replaced the part and sent it back, and it's been perfect since. That was a Model 21 (.45 ACP).

The overwhelming majority are super reliable from the factory, and if there's a problem, it's obvious immediately. I suspect that 21 had a defective part because the gun shop guys used it to practice detail stripping Glocks, and damaged a small part in the process. That's my suspicion, because they all talked like they like to do that when they were bored.

You can shoot a Glock dirty and it will keep working, although relubing it every five hundred rounds is a good idea, even if you choose not to clean it but once in a thousand rounds.

I sure aint any kind of cop , operator or any of those other sexy names , but I carry an old and ugly G23 . I love that piece of ugly crap .

It took me a long time to come around to buying one. I've since tried very hard to not like them, but keep coming back to them. They just work for me. I shoot them better than anything else I've tried. And I've tried the Smith M&P's. On paper they are a better gun, but not in my hands. And a M&P is only about $50 less, not $150 less.

A couple of months ago I did pick up one of the Sig M17's. Once again on paper I like it better, but time will tell. For now I still shoot my Glocks better. But I'm going to give the Sig an honest chance to win me over.

you show your friends your nickle plated sissy pistols and your 1911's, you show those intent on doing you terminal bodily harm your glocks.

Yep. You wore out that .45 I sent you yet ?🤠

1911 pistols have a proven track record. We were never allowed to carry them by division policy, so I never became comfortable with them. Sig pistols are also fine weapons. But after 30 years of shooting the low bore axis Glock pistols, they feel like the sights are a foot above my hand. I'm a lefty so my Gen 5 19 is really growing on me. It has an ambidextrous slide lock lever, and I switched the mag release to the right side.

Ron

Exactly to the point I was making. The very same can be said of many quality handguns today. Modern S&W, Sig, CZ, FN, Beretta and Springfield pistols do the same thing. And for what it's worth I personally have seen Glocks not only malfunction, but also have small parts break. I had a class last summer with a Glock shooter on either side of me. One female and one male and both of them had malfunctions consistently throughout the class. It happens...

As Hickok45 says, there are some people, no matter what auto pistol you put in their hand, they will have malfunctions with them.

Shot `em for 15yrs and wouldn't mind if I never saw another. Most overrated pistol in existence. Terrible grip angle and shape, coarse plastic sights and they're ugly as Pelosi. When I bought my first in 1991, there were scant comparable options. So many better options available today.