As we’ve seen time and time again, proper handling procedures are not the strong suit of too many so-called “responsible gun owners”. That’s even more the case for children who live in their homes and might have access to these semi-automatic weapons that these civilians claim they “need”.
4 Likes
This is the best post in this thread.
Exactly. The DOD has long experience issuing handguns. I have heard that they have had more accidents with their handguns than any other thing. At the same time, handguns are the least useful weapon they have. So they were like, “ok, our guys insist on having handguns, so let’s make sure they are double-action (long trigger pull) AND have a stiff manual safety”, hence the M9. For the M17, by that point hammer fired guns were mostly out, but they still insisted on the manual safety. If civilian / LE market guns had that design there wouldn’t be “Glock leg”.
As I posted a link above to a Daily Mail article, Glock absolutely has had the same issue, plus lawsuits, plus the term “Glock leg”.
I also thought about this. Maybe it helps in a few cases where the obstruction isn’t directly on the face of the trigger.
I also thought about that and that’s the only mechanical aspect that I can see that sounds like a problem. Glock’s “safe action” design only half-cocks the striker. There’s a safety advantage in that, which the P320 doesn’t have.
Exactly. This is why I remain in the belief that it’s simple obstructions pulling the trigger.
Yeah, and the lawsuits they have had over this. “Glock leg” sounds funny but there have been fatalities from it.
Yes. Glock had two other design points that caused problems: One, the trigger must be pulled before disassembly. I know, users should clear the gun, but anyway, this was what it was. Other designs like 1911, you can disassemble without a trigger pull. Two, and this is a bizarre one, the original Glock case required a trigger pull before putting the gun back in the case. I believe they did that so you could loop a lock cable through it, but I believe some people had discharges that way. Good design assumes users will make certain mistakes.
Yes, and this is why I sort of don’t like DA triggers. People get into this habit. It’s also very unsafe if they are pointing a gun at a suspect and the trigger is loaded. It shouldn’t be, but it’s a habit that people get into with DA guns.
1 Like
No argument here in that regard.
1 Like
More on the issue with Glock. I linked to an article about all the suits they have had, but in addition, there’s a whole set of aftermarket devices for the Glock to add safety to it:
- The Safe-T-Blok, which blocks the trigger from being pulled
- Siderlock safety button on the trigger
- The Striker Control Device to give the user tactile feedback when there’s an obstruction.
I just feel like they should put a manual safety on these things.
In medical devices, manufacturers are responsible for both the function of the device and for how it is used by customers. If you design a product that functions per specification but users mishandle it regularly, causing injury, the manufacturer is liable for that misuse and must recall or redesign the product. Manufacturers must actively monitor the use of their products and make corrections proactively if they find misuse causing injury.
That is for products whose purpose is to save or improve lives and can only be used by highly trained and licensed professionals. I find it ludicrous and offensive that products that are designed to kill people are not held to higher standards, rather than no fucking standard at all.
11 Likes
This is a good point. There’s nothing about whether the military issues these that changes anything about how completely insane it is this one country thinks all civilians should be able to kill each other at a moment’s notice. “Civilian semi-automatic handgun” is a term that deserves enough sarcastic caps on its own.
14 Likes
The military adopted it* as standard issue for the usual reason: because it was assessed to be a particularly effective killing machine. As you say, the true insanity is that civilians were and are still able to get their hands on them.
Apart from a handful of edge cases, the only civilians who need access to semi-automatic pistols are criminals.
[* IIRC this particular pistol was initially a consumer product]
5 Likes
Firstly, that headline is terribly misleading. At the very least I expected a firearm dropped into a barbecue, or perhaps some mild demonic possession, but no, it’s not just the one gun.
On a slightly different tack, @Fefelo. Why do you feel the need to carry a firearm around with you all day long?
This is a genuine question, no judgement (I’m from the UK, we don’t have that option). I’m assuming you live in a particularly sketchy area, but of course I know what assuming means.
5 Likes
No no, we can be judgey as fuck, dude, don’t worry about that.
4 Likes
At least you don’t have a gun for no good reason.
8 Likes
What do you mean “no good reason”?
I mean, just because this object is designed with the sole purpose of killing people (unless you’re going to tell me that there are people who go hunting deer or rabbits or pigeons or something with glock pistols, which maybe there are, people are weird), that doesn’t mean it can’t be used for other purposes, like shooting at targets for the purpose of getting better at using it for shooting at targets (and, you know, at people, but only incidentally, like, as a side effect), and I demand the right to carry this thing around with me because it’s my right to do so, and maybe in case I have a sudden need for some target practice, oh, and I suppose in case I have to kill somebody, which is only really an issue in the US because they also have the right to carry these things which are designed to kill people, and I feel unsafe on the streets for some completely mysterious reason, that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to have and carry them.
/s
9 Likes
Why a clay pigeon could be hiding around the next corner right now, waiting to pounce!
12 Likes
9 Likes
all snark aside, it’s completely feasible to have people store their guns at the shooting range. there’s absolutely no reason for people who enjoy shooting to have to have a gun at home, or in their car, or on their person.
require gun ranges to have staff be trained in first aid and people can shoot themselves in the leg as much as they want. problem solved.
7 Likes
Come on down to the Walter Mitty Sporting Clays, Archery, and Tourniquet Center—this week inflict one nonfatal wound and get the second for 50% off
The Red Cross can teach classes there even 
3 Likes
So it’s clearly a poor design and a mechanical failure because of the poor design.
Please don’t try to obfuscate the fact, you’ve already said, quite clearly, that there are problems. Trying to baffle others with bullshit just isn’t working for you, so just give it up.
4 Likes
This thread has reminded me why I had certain people on Ignore. I’ve remedied that.
2 Likes
Huh? I’m not trying to baffle anyone. I said very clearly there are problems. It’s working perfectly as designed. The design is the problem.
It’s for work plus some bad areas I frequently have to be in. I work in situations that are not good. I have never had to draw my gun. I hope I never need to. I’m trying everything possible to change my situation to get someplace safer.
I hope that my current permit may be my last and i won’t renew it if I can change my location. I hope someday to move to Europe where concealed carry isn’t much of a thing.
Yeah in the UK, I don’t think there’s any need for such things.
1 Like
That’s certainly one way of saying “illegal as fuck oh my sweet christ you have absolutely no idea how illegal concealed carry is in Europe”.
10 Likes
