Replies

When the trigger is pulled, the weapon fires. Just like a revolver.

Stock revolvers have longer and heavier trigger pulls than a Glock by a considerable margin. That actually does make a big difference. Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types. That doesn't make it a bad action type, but it does make it one that must be respected. Why Glockophiles always feel the need to deny the obvious when the obvious in no way implies any actual defect in the weapon is beyond me.

Stock revolvers have longer and heavier trigger pulls than a Glock by a considerable margin. That actually does make a big difference. Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types...Why Glockophiles always feel the need to deny the obvious...
______

Wasn't aware I was a 'Glockophile.' I'm required to teach the safe and effective use of firearms, whatever we are issued, which (until recently) included revolvers. I would argue that a shooter predisposed to 'oops' the trigger on a Glock would be just as likely to 'oops' a revolver.

I agree with your physics-based assessment of the trigger system. The post I responded to, however, was on the issue of the installed safeties on a Glock. Again, anyone that pulls the trigger on ANY weapon should expect it to fire, regardless of how far the trigger has to travel to do so.

I am neither pro nor con on individual weapon types. As you said, each has it's own unique handling characteristics, and I instruct accordingly. But taking your argument to the logical conclusion, a gun with a 100 pound trigger (or one that won't fire at all) is much, much, safer. Why not issue those?

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight - I agree with your basic premise. My only point here is that the weapons are designed to FIRE when needed. The trend has been to design weapons that are hard to get operational under stress, and holsters that are impossible to draw the gun out of. It seems to be an easy solution for departments because it is an equipment based solution to the AD (Oops - 'Negligent discharge', sorry..) and weapon retention problem, and not a training solution which is much more difficult to weigh and measure.

How much is enough? How far to you go to protect the shooter from his/her own inadequacies?

Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types.

When the trigger on a Glock is released, the firearm reverts to a normal "carry" state of readiness. Provided only that the user's finger is off the trigger (though that is, of course, critically important!), it may be reholstered safely. If a user is in the habit of removing his finger from the trigger when setting the gun down (whether it's loaded or not), that habit will carry through to the field.

On most other automatic pistols, with the exception of DAO's, users are much less likely to practice the moves necessary to restore their gun to safe "carry" mode after use because such moves aren't applicable after the gun runs dry and the slide locks open.

Someone who only uses a 1911 on the range could easily get by without ever using the safety and never have an unintended discharge result from that. In real life, however, unlike the range, users often don't shoot a gun dry. Holstering a Condition Zero DA/SA pistol is a recipe for an unintended discharge (which could happen any time--not necessarily immediately when the gun is holstered).

It seems to me that the Glock's action does a wonderful job of combining the advantages of a DA/SA pistol (short trigger travel for followup-shots) with those of a DAO pistol (releasing the trigger revers the gun to "carry" readiness). What makes it "hard"?