Are Glocks and XDs a flawed design due pulling the trigger before dissassembly

This is a discussion on Are Glocks and XDs a flawed design due pulling the trigger before dissassembly within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Yes. It is an unsafe and irresponsible design created with the false assumption that people are infallible. People make mistakes, that is a fact. No ...

View Poll Results: Are Glocks and XDs a flawed design (pulling trigger to disassemble)

Voters
145. You may not vote on this poll
  • What's a Glock or XD?

    0 0%
  • Yes, this is unsafe and should be changed.

    19 13.10%
  • No, your safety is in your head and following the 4 rules.

    115 79.31%
  • Never had one, maybe never will.

    11 7.59%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 80

Thread: Are Glocks and XDs a flawed design due pulling the trigger before dissassembly

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Yes. It is an unsafe and irresponsible design created with the false assumption that people are infallible.

    People make mistakes, that is a fact. No matter how many respected posters mention from time to time, and to their embarresment, that they had an ND people here still think it is impossible.

    As a poster somewhere else in time put it...

    would you put a self destruct button on your ship and have a step in cleaning the bridge be "PUSH BUTTON TO CLEAN"?

    Sorry, people are fallible. We talk about the "FOUR RULES" as if they solve everything but do you ever think of WHY we need four rules? They are conviently written so that if you screw up one the others keep you from killing someone. The Four Rules themselves are redundant because they acknowledge that people make mistakes! For some reason though Gaston Glock disregarded that basic fact of humanity and created a weapon with no redundant safety whatsoever. Others then ran with the design.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    I never understood how those in the Glock camp considerred people so stupid and fallible that they couldn't effectively use a manual safety while at the same time considerring them perfectly capable of never making an error in handling resulting in an ND while breaking down the gun...

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    I didnt vote since my opinion is somewhere inbetween . Do i think its intrinsically unsafe to pull a trigger to disassemble a firearm ? NO . Do i think its an unwise design choice that WILL lead to NDs ? Yes . As an old instructor from days gone by Ill say that if an agency adopts such a pistol everyone must set thro remedial training to build a " manual of arms " that without exception mandates a chamber inspection as the first step in a codified cleaning ritual . IMHO anytime that you must decock a firearm with a trigger there needs to be a ritual inspection process so ingrained that it is unthinking to do ( similar to reholstering without looking , ect ) . I much prefer handguns that can be manipulated without decocking by trigger , but with the proper training and attention to detail decocking by trigger its self is not enough to call a firearm unsafe .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    RR,

    I don't disagree with you at all, but couldn't the very same argument be used to justify carrying a 1911 cocked with the thumb safety off? Would that be intrinsically unsafe? I mean the grip safety still has to be depressed.

    If we've built a " manual of arms " that without exception mandates ", finger off the trigger until the gun is on target, wouldn't that be acceptable by the same argument?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array HK Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    774
    I dry fire every gun that I own as the final step in my safety check.

    Drop the mag, rack the slide, look in the chamber, look through the open mag well, look in the chamber again. Drop the slide, dry fire in a safe direction.

    I do this before I hand a gun to someone and whenever I pick one up, every time. My kids do it as well--even if they just saw me do it (handing it to them).

    Safety issue? I think not.
    HK Dan
    "What does Marcellus Wallace LOOK like?"

  7. #21
    Member Array NE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    No. All firearms should (must) be cleared prior to disassembly. Operator stupidity at this level is not a design flaw.

    Not much I can add to that thought.
    One of the fundamental truths of the universe is that there isn't anything that cannot be improved with the addition of pirates, ninjas, strippers, midgets or monkeys.

    "A car door is not cover. In fact a car is not cover. Cement is." - military contractor in Iraq 2004

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Musketeer View Post
    As a poster somewhere else in time put it...

    would you put a self destruct button on your ship and have a step in cleaning the bridge be "PUSH BUTTON TO CLEAN"?
    This is an utterly ridiculous analolgy. That's akin to saying that you must put the loaded gun to your head, and then pull the trigger in order to disassemble it. Certainly you can see the difference.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Musketeer View Post
    I never understood how those in the Glock camp considerred people so stupid and fallible that they couldn't effectively use a manual safety while at the same time considerring them perfectly capable of never making an error in handling resulting in an ND while breaking down the gun...
    Actually, I believe that the reasoning is quite the opposite: People are competent enough to not to need a manual safety, and are also competent enough to clear their weapon before disassembly.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  10. #24
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Actually, I believe that the reasoning is quite the opposite: People are competent enough to not to need a manual safety, and are also competent enough to clear their weapon before disassembly.
    So then, by that logic, it would be safe to carry a 1911 cocked, with the thumb safety off?

    If people are "competent enough", how come so many have had unintentional discharges?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    So then, by that logic, it would be safe to carry a 1911 cocked, with the thumb safety off?

    If people are "competent enough", how come so many have had unintentional discharges?
    If the 1911 in question had the same trigger pull weight, same internal safeties, same "3/4's of the way cocked" at rest position, and same "trigger" safety, then it would certainly be safe to carry it that way. Apples and oranges, Tangle.

    And I didn't say people were competent enough (though they should be), I said that that is the reasoning. Dumb people do dumb things, despite any attempt to prevent them. Car accidents, boat accidents, power tool accidents, and so on and so on... Ever hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer? Would it have made a difference if you had to flick a lever before swinging the hammer? What level of manufactured "safety" is enough? Internal trigger locks? Magnetic rings on your fingers? A retina scan before the gun will fire?

    The point is this: It is not, never has been, and never will be unsafe to pull the trigger on an unloaded gun. It is not, never has been, and never will be safe to pull the trigger on a loaded gun (excepting that you want to launch a bullet at that time.) No mechanical device (or lack thereof) will ever change these facts.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    RR,

    I don't disagree with you at all, but couldn't the very same argument be used to justify carrying a 1911 cocked with the thumb safety off? Would that be intrinsically unsafe? I mean the grip safety still has to be depressed.

    If we've built a " manual of arms " that without exception mandates ", finger off the trigger until the gun is on target, wouldn't that be acceptable by the same argument?
    Tangle in short NO . LOL . The 1911 trigger and the striker trigger are completely different critters the striker ( hereinafter refered to as glock since glock pioneered the system in popular firearms ) trigger is carried at a half cock on the striker . Tho a 1911 and a glock may have a similar trigger pull the 1911 is carried at full cock, and if properly adjusted takes almost no movement to release the sear which will in turn release the hammer , when the hammer releases it WILL fire , this is why the thumb safety blocks the sear from movement . the " glock " however carries the striker at about " half cock " which may or may not fire if suddenly released , but more important is the fact that fireing it requires not only a certain poundage but also a certain amount of movement of the trigger its self . This can vary depending on brand and model ( i carry day to day a kahr which has a " glock " trigger but is much more akin to a double action revolver and no block tab on the trigger ) . I also own a " tactical staple gun " ( hk p7 ) which was really the first common pistol to have this type trigger , tho it requires a pre cock via a grip lever . In any case the gun with a glock type trigger is not ready to fire , and in fact has the fireing pin blocked by a passive safety unless and untill the trigger is fully depressed . The 1911 by contrast is good to go if cocked and should be carried with all safetys fully functional and the manual safety ( thumb ) engaged ( unless your really have a desire for a large hole in your butt ) . The striker fired pistol is a different sort of design , and S&W made a large leap forward with the M&P line with the decock tab that you depress for takedown rather than the pull the trigger mindset . I dont like the pull the trigger , but it can be done safely with proper training . I hope that answers your tounge in cheek q Tangle and possibly clears some issues up for the new guys who read the thread .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  13. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    If the 1911 in question had the same trigger pull weight, same internal safeties, same "3/4's of the way cocked" at rest position, and same "trigger" safety, then it would certainly be safe to carry it that way. Apples and oranges, Tangle.
    It's not apples and oranges at all. If we claim a 1911 would be safe to carry cocked, with the thumb safety off, IF, "had the same trigger pull weight, same internal safeties, same "3/4's of the way cocked" at rest position, and same "trigger" safety,\..." Are you not perfectly defining a gun being inherently safer because of it's mechanical features? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of safety is in the brain of the user, not in mechanical configuration?

    Actually, it's just a matter of degrees. A Glock has one of the shortest, lightest trigger pull of just about any non-1911 gun, DAO, on the market. How can we saw our mind makes the gun safe, and then turn around and enumerate the things that make a Glock safer than a cocked and unlocked 1911?

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    And I didn't say people were competent enough (though they should be), I said that that is the reasoning. Dumb people do dumb things, despite any attempt to prevent them. Car accidents, boat accidents, power tool accidents, and so on and so on... Ever hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer? Would it have made a difference if you had to flick a lever before swinging the hammer? What level of manufactured "safety" is enough? Internal trigger locks? Magnetic rings on your fingers? A retina scan before the gun will fire?
    I have to disagree with the premise that only dumb people do dumb things. I think you just called everybody that has had an unintentional discharge, dumb. The truth is, very intelligent people do dumb things also.

    As for what level of manufactured safety is enough, I think you already answered that when you described all the safety features built into a Glock and the implication that a 1911 needs an additional external safety because it doesn't have the inherent safety features of the Glock.

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    The point is this: It is not, never has been, and never will be unsafe to pull the trigger on an unloaded gun. It is not, never has been, and never will be safe to pull the trigger on a loaded gun (excepting that you want to launch a bullet at that time.) No mechanical device (or lack thereof) will ever change these facts.
    If the above is true, then I have to ask again, why is an external safety needed on a 1911? The thunb safety is a mechanical device, is it not? If the above is really true, what purpose does the thumb safety serve? It won't keep the gun from discharging if it's dropped; there are other safeties for that, it won't prevent a discharge if the user miss uses it, so what's it for?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,706
    Read RRs post above, he's answered the question quite well. And they are apples and oranges, being completely different ignition systems. And you can stop trying to convince me that a thumb safety is a bad idea - I already don't like them...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  15. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    RR,

    What would make the hammer release from the sear without the trigger being pulled? A drop perhaps? Probably not, because even if the sear bounced lose from the hammer, the sear would likely re-engage on the half cock sears preventing a discharge.

    In a model 80 the firing pin is blocked by the trigger, so unless the grip safety is depressed, then the trigger is pulled, it can't fire.

    Then, in the grip safety firing pin block, the firing pin is blocked until the grip safety is depressed, so is the trigger. So what's the purpose of the thumb safety?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    If the above is really true, what purpose does the thumb safety serve? It won't keep the gun from discharging if it's dropped;
    Actually it may , and on a series 80 it will . The thumbsafety on a 1911 of any generation insures that the sear must disengage for the pistol to fire under normal operation . It puts a physical metal barrior to fireing in place that requires the sear to break before the hammer can fall . glock triggers neither have nor need this , since they do not operate at " full cock " as a 1911 does . On a 1911 if the hammer falls it most likely will fire , on a glock action in theory ( tho the theory is somewhat dispelled with the newer more sensitive primers ) half cock is not enough energy to fire the handgun . The paddle on the trigger of the glock /sd line is to insure that something crosses the entire trigger to fire it , and an errant snag of the trigger most likely will not . Again you cannot compare the two action types on safety or quality of trigger tho in a defensive role they may well have similar weights of trigger .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. My flawed logic on Wilderness gun belt?
    By chains1240 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 4th, 2009, 11:47 AM
  2. 1911 Trigger Design?
    By Tros in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 12th, 2009, 09:57 PM
  3. Flawed or not, will this work?
    By BigBlack in forum Reloading
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 30th, 2008, 08:57 PM
  4. Ruger bolt dissassembly?
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 21st, 2007, 11:05 PM
  5. D.C.'s flawed reasoning
    By 88m in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 9th, 2007, 09:59 PM

Search tags for this page

glock design flaws
,
how to improve trigger pull xds 45
,
pulling trigger with slide off
,
why did glock design dissassembly by pulling trigger
,
xds 9 flaw
,
xds action cutaway picture
,
xds cutaway
,
xds design flaw
,
xds firing pin stop pin
,
xds flawed or user error
,

xds recoil spring

,

xds trigger pull

Click on a term to search for related topics.