Posted by Curious from 1Cust37.tnt1.brunswick.ga.da.uu.net on March 29, 2001 at 17:58:24:
In Reply to: Re: Following your logic, where is the the outcry for external safties on revolvers?(nm) posted by Dr.Brody on March 29, 2001 at 12:51:55:
I don't feel we're being contentious, and I don't consider this an argument--I hope you don't either. I enjoy this discussion and I have it often. I work in a law enforcement training environment and I teach this stuff--and I'm outnumbered by Glock lovers but that doesn't upset me. One's preference of firearms is very personal. I haven't converted anyone yet, and I am not trying to do so. I just try to point out what I consider to be a firearm with which a shooter needs to exercise even more caution than others--fully realizing that there can never be too much caution exercised with any gun. I hear a lot of stories about unintentional or negligent or accidental discharges (it's all the same to me) and it is not uncommon to hear that a Glock is involved. In particular are the horror stories that abound from the Washington D.C. metro police and the problems they've had since switching to Glocks.
I fully understand the way a Glock functions, internal (passive) safeties and all. Saying "the striker is in the set position" is no different from the hammer being cocked on other guns, like the Colt 1911. No one would carry a Colt cocked and unlocked with one in the tube, but Glock users do so everyday. There is no way to decock a Glock, like you can with a Sig Sauer, without dropping the hammer (or "unsetting the striker"?). And I again assert that there is nothing to stop the striker from hitting the primer if the trigger is pulled, however unintentionally or negligently. Pulling the trigger deactivates those two passive safeties. And I would bet that catching the trigger on a holster or belt could depress the active safety in the trigger sufficiently to allow the gun to fire--I'm saying it is possible, but, hopefully, unlikely.
I have no doubt a Glock will not fire if dropped, even from an airplane. But most accidental discharges occur because someone put their finger on the trigger, and in doing so already they defeated the only active safety feature. I feel that it's a stupid place to put a safety. The plain and simple truth is that if 5 pounds of pressure is exerted on the trigger, there is nothing to stop the gun from firing. Of course trigger pulls vary, but 5 pounds is a common trigger pull and Glocks are available from the factory that way. Eight pounds is fairly light, too. Twelve pounds is in the double-action revolver range and a safety isn't really necessary (though the Murabito safety was put on certain old Smith & Wesson revolvers at one time).
To fire a Glock, one must perform one conscious (or unconscious) act: that is to apply sufficient pressure on the trigger. To fire a Colt, one must perform three acts: 1) grip the firearm to deactivate the grip safety, 2) flip down the thumb safety, and 3) apply sufficient pressure on the trigger. Some law enforcement agencies, like the U.S. Marshals for one, will not allow their officers/agents/deputies to carry single-action pistols, like the Colt, but they allow the use of Glocks. This makes no sense and it tells me they do not understand firearms if that is the case. On the Colt, anyone can see when the hammer is cocked; on the Glock you can't see the "striker in the set position". I guess some folks feel that what they can't see can't hurt them.
Marketing gimmicks like "safe-action" terminology aside, the Glock IS A SINGLE-ACTION FIREARM. It performs a single function when the trigger is pulled, and that is to "unset the striker", which is the equivalent of saying "drop the hammer". Double-action, of course, means the gun performs two functions when the trigger is pulled, it cocks the hammer and drops it.
I, personally, would not want a gun that is plastic (I know, it has metal parts, but we've been over that). But it's all personal preference, like which car to buy. Thanks for the discussion. I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, but this is fun!
: :When the striker is in the "set" position, if it could get around the drop safety and the firing pin safety, there is not enough tension in the firing pin spring to detonate even the most sensitive primer. In order to disengage the Glock's two internal safetys the slack must be taken out of the trigger. to re-engage both safetys mentioned above, release the trigger(what you do when going from "pointed in and ready to fire" to a "low ready" postition). What you describe as the "the striker being back over a live round with nothing to stop it" simply does not exist. I agree that if all persons obeyed rule number three(finger off trigger until sights are on target and you are ready to shoot)there would be fewer "negligent discharges". Also, the safety in the face of the trigger is designed to prevent the edge of a holster,etc., from catching the trigger and firing the weapon, not to be "the only safety". I'm not trying to be contencious, only pointing out the way the Glock actually functions. Regards, Dr.Brody
Post a Followup: