Pistol injures at least 80 people without anyone pulling the trigger

it’s both impossible and also happens all the time


As I explained, it’s not a mechanical failure in the sense of some parts failing and causing this, it’s that something obstructs or presses the trigger at some point, and there’s no manual safety, so, kaboom.

The BB post makes it sound like something is mechanically failing in these. I really don’t think so. I think it’s working as designed, unfortunately.

They have a whole video going into detail about all the mechanical blocks that prevent it from firing. I don’t believe those are all failing. I believe triggers are getting pulled by some obstruction.

There are, indeed, some older guns that can just go off, or can go off when dropped. But Glocks, P320s and any other modern handguns aren’t like that.

Yeah I will switch to something else when possible, and even better change my situation so none of this is necessary.

Glocks, most (but not all) P320 types, and most other modern pistols work this way: no manual safety and a trigger lighter than traditional revolvers. I keep thinking this is a design mistake, even if it is mechanically correct. Glock is the most popular pistol out there for a long time and there are similar reports about it, in all cases due to some obstruction or pull of the trigger.

Revolvers also worked the same way. I have very little experience with them but I think they need a longer trigger pull. I also wonder if similar things ever happened with them back when they were the main choice (pre-1990s).

There’s an article referencing a bunch of lawsuits and similar incidents involving Glock. Again, Glock has no mechanical flaws, but this could be considered “flawed by design”. It’s really the same situation as the P320 variants without manual safety.

There are some P320 variants that do have a manual safety. Most significantly, the Sig M17 / M18 chosen by the DOD, which looks like a great pistol, does have a manual safety. I wonder if they have had any of these kabooms.


Where does it make it sound that way? He clearly states it sounds like there’s a flaw in the mechanical design of the weapon, not in the mechanical function.

The second is beside the point when the first condition exists. Especially when discussing a dangerous tool.


“without anyone pulling the trigger”. Something is applying force to the trigger to make these go off. Not a deliberate trigger pull, but a pull or contact with the trigger of some kind.

I agree, and the DOD also agrees, which is why they wanted a manual safety on it, unlike most LE and civilian buyers.


The word “intentionally” is clearly implied on the part of user action.


You’re working very hard to draw a pointless distinction.

If a car was designed such that normal human use caused it to randomly swerve into pedestrians, that car would immediately be pulled from the market. “But it’s as designed!” is not an argument that anyone would try to make as innocent people are carrying their deceased loved ones out of the street.

Yet here you are.


I would submit that if it’s not only possible, but easy to accidentally activate a tool whose only purpose in use is to kill or maim people, then that’s a failure, and if it’s a failure in design rather than in manufacture, that makes it much much worse.


Not in the Chekov 9mm it doesn’t.


“Warning: do not place on mantlepiece”


I dunno, I’ve always enjoyed playing with kids. It helps that I have two of my own. I’m also ok playing with stupid people, though I generally don’t categorize people like that.


Well, which is it? Is it incapable of firing without a trigger pull or is an unintentional discharge not uncommon? C’mon SIG Sauer, pick one argument.


I agree that having no mechanical safety is a mistake, but more likely that the manufacturers deliberately didn’t give a crap about the safety of people around the gun user. It screams of irresponsibility. This was designed for the mythical good guy with a gun, who can take down the [insert focus of Fox News ire] without having to fumble with a safety for 0.3 seconds or spend an extra 2 ounces of force squeezing the trigger. But so what about the kids who find these guns I guess.

The M9 Beretta used for years by the Military has a mechanical safety. A really good one too. And there are visual cues to the user that the safety is engaged or disengaged from multiple points of view. The M9 holster has an interference mechanism so you cannot holster a gun that has the safety off (I don’t know if that was by design). If you try to put the weapon back on safe while a round is chambered you have to clear the chamber first (another safety). I don’t think I ever heard of one going off accidentally (negligently) when used with it’s proper holster.

If a gun manufactuer omits a mechanical safety to better market their wares to idiots they are just being utterly negligent in their responsibilities


Glock leg is a cutesy term that is meant to deflect away from the fact that the mechanical design is susceptible to failure through normal use. My TV remote was designed to withstand years of being dropped and thrown and will most assuredly outlast the TV it controls because the manufacturers considered how it would be used. I wouldn’t be surprised if Glock came up with the term “Glock leg” themselves.


what’s in a femoral artery anyway?

( oh right. blood. lots and lots of blood. :crying_cat_face: )


Sigh. My dude. It was a CIVILIAN design before the military adopted it.

There is literally NO differences in performance between the military M17, the civilian model Sig 320, and 50 other full sized 9mm handgun models to make it too “dangerous” for civilians.

Honestly, if they only made the military version, it probably wouldn’t be having these issues as the military insists on a thumb safety.

If there is any added danger, it is due to a design flaw, not because the military adopted it.

Aw gee - the article was about the technical differences and how the design could have a flaw in it. I wonder why one would reply about the technical aspects of it?

Please come up with something other than the tired old tactics of “theRE is No legITImAte REaSON fOr A CIVIliaN TO oWn a MilItARY iSsUE SeMI-AUtomatIc HaNDgUN”

Absolutely obstructions can cause a discharge, but it appears to me that it is more than that because other similar models don’t have this issue. Would a blade style safety in the trigger prevent this? Maybe, but not all striker fired guns use that either nor have this problem.

The fully cocked striker is something different than most other striker fired handguns and probably is where the issue lies. That and/or the safety lock not blocking the striker. It sure is frustrating no one has been able to replicate the issue in a lab.

Er - an unintentional discharge means one didn’t mean to pull the trigger when they did, but they did indeed pull the trigger. “Unintentional discharge” doesn’t mean it just went off “by itself”.

OH I assure you, they would rather not have that association.

While I personally prefer manual safeties with any gun being carried loaded (like your M9), the Glock was the first widely adopted semi-auto that didn’t have one. It has internal safeties to prevent it from firing with out a trigger pull, but one has to properly handle it.

Many cops went from double action revolvers to Glocks, and those changes is what lead to a lot of them having NDs in the 80s. A revolver doesn’t have a mechanical safety either. It has a long, heavy trigger pull. Many cops would “load the trigger” on a draw or when pointing it where it is more or less half pulled. This was a bad habit you could get away with because of the long, heavy trigger.

Glocks having a long, mushy pull, but much shorter and lighter than a double action revolver. Operating your Glock like your old revolver would result in it going off when you didn’t mean to. It got bad enough that NYPD insisted their Glocks come with a 10lb trigger pull, which reduced the issue but made it so you have a hell of a time hitting anything.

Or they were coming from a single action pistol platform with a safety, and were in the habit of putting their finger on the trigger with the safety on. A bad habit that would lead to a Glock firing.(If you have your finger on the trigger with the safety on, you’re just begging for a negligent discharge when you flick it off with out meaning to and put your finger on the trigger.)

But that was 40 years ago, and now everyone is trained to keep your finger to the side when drawing or pointing until ready to fire. So while I agree with your point and personal preference, the “no manual safety” probably isn’t the issue here, but a design flaw. YMMV.

I guess I should note there are other smaller issues with the 320 platform.

  1. The widened mag well version doesn’t work with all factory mags. (annoying)

  2. Nothing will stop a longer magazines from being inserted too far and damaging the ejector. (non user serviceable part, possibly breaking the gun

  3. There have been issues where out of spec ammo can cause it to fire out of battery and damage the firearm and possibly the user. Though this is more about the ammo, the barrel design, IIRC, makes this more of an issue than other models.

  4. The ability to discharge if dropped a specific way, which was fixed. (as noted in the article)

So -yeah. I wouldn’t buy one and if I did, I wouldn’t carry it loaded.

1 Like

My Dad had one. It was always my biggest fear when using it on the range. Also cleaning it went far above what is usually done with rifles. So I generally stayed away from bringing it.


That’s really really smart. I would like that. The M9 is also DA/ SA. I sort of like that too. I did change a spring to give my Glock closer to a DA trigger pull. But the safety / holster interaction you describe is a very smart idea.

I agree with this, this is why I’m making the distinction here. It’s working as designed! This isn’t a mechanical failure! And that’s worse !

It’s like if I have a Bugatti and I go 200+ mph and get smashed to bits… well, the car was working as designed, it’s not a mechanical failure, it’s a design problem.

Again, no-one is claiming it’s a mechanical failure. It’s a bad design, and “works” accordingly.




I have a Springfield Armory XD-9; it’s one of the ‘glock clones’ in that it’s a striker-fired semi with a trigger safety. It also has a ‘grip’ safety (there’s a part on the back of the grip that moves when you are holding the firearm correctly) which, when combined with proper handling procedures, greatly reduces the chance of a negligent discharge.

There is also a design flaw with this specific model that requires one to pull the trigger when disassembling it for cleaning, which was corrected in a later design revision; however, see the “proper handling procedures” for little things like making absolutely certain the thing is unloaded before doing so…