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; A derail in another thread prompted this one. Please vote and comment as you feel necessary....

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 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 80

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050

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

    A derail in another thread prompted this one. Please vote and comment as you feel necessary.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    No. All firearms should (must) be cleared prior to disassembly. Operator stupidity at this level is not a design flaw.
    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.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array MNBurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,019
    No - People need to condition themselves to do disassembly or unloading in the correct order. Then no problem. If they can't, they need a different gun with a decocker.
    MNBurl

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ron8903's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,575
    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.
    My answer as well.
    "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
    - Sir Winston Churchill

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    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.
    +50,0000 Don't be an idiot with your handgun and there are no problems.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  7. #6
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    The voting already provides the answer.

    Altho I do not like the method required it is no way something to have to be seen as an unsafe practice. Between the ears - is where safety resides.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  8. #7
    Member Array S3ymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    458
    IMHO, this is yet another way of darwinism. You forget to follow the 4 rules, you just helped clear the world of one more unintelligent person. I think it is great.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    "unsafe" maybe not, but un-necessary? absolutely. It forces the operator to break one of the 4 rules: keep your finger off the trigger unless you want the gun to fire. What if the gun required that it be held in such a way that it pointed at your chest as you dry-fired to disassemble it? That would break 2 rules, and most people would not be comfortable with that. Why be comfortable breaking only one? Especially when it could be easily designed to not require this.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Bob, to be fair, you do want the gun to "fire." There are times when it is appropriate to pull the trigger and not expect to discharge a round - every armorer in the military pulls the trigger on a (hopefully) empty chamber every time the stick an M4/M16 into the arms room, for example. Many of us manually lower the hammer of a SA pistol or revolver for storage, etc.

    IMO, this does not violate any of the rules, because you are consciously choosing to pull the trigger, and expecting a particular result. As long as you are certain that the weapon is clear, are pointing it in a safe direction, and are fully in control of your own actions, what is unsafe?
    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.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    My glocks I am almost analretentive about clearing the gun, pulling the slide back over and over and over after first taking my magazine out and then I point it in a safe direction and then pull the trigger.

    Safety is key, my gun should protect me, keep me safe and I should be responsible enough to not shoot myself, anyone else or other unintended objects.
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Bob, to be fair, you do want the gun to "fire." There are times when it is appropriate to pull the trigger and not expect to discharge a round - every armorer in the military pulls the trigger on a (hopefully) empty chamber every time the stick an M4/M16 into the arms room, for example. Many of us manually lower the hammer of a SA pistol or revolver for storage, etc.

    IMO, this does not violate any of the rules, because you are consciously choosing to pull the trigger, and expecting a particular result. As long as you are certain that the weapon is clear, are pointing it in a safe direction, and are fully in control of your own actions, what is unsafe?
    Agreed. Otherwise you'd never dry-fire a weapon. If you've confirmed that it's clear and pointed in a safe direction, there's nothing unsafe about it.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Bob, to be fair, you do want the gun to "fire." There are times when it is appropriate to pull the trigger and not expect to discharge a round - every armorer in the military pulls the trigger on a (hopefully) empty chamber every time the stick an M4/M16 into the arms room, for example. Many of us manually lower the hammer of a SA pistol or revolver for storage, etc.

    IMO, this does not violate any of the rules, because you are consciously choosing to pull the trigger, and expecting a particular result. As long as you are certain that the weapon is clear, are pointing it in a safe direction, and are fully in control of your own actions, what is unsafe?
    But you don't want it to fire. If you want to change the wording of the rule to "discharge", that's fine by me, because that's what it actually means.

    Dry-firing the gun is perfectly acceptable if there is no other alternative. I have dry-fired my USP in practice many times. I also dry-fire my rifles before storing them hammer-down. But I do it because there is no other alternative, either for effective practice or proper storage. When disassembling a gun for cleaning, it's so easy to enable disassembly without requiring a dry-fire that I call it a design flaw not to do so.

    It is not unsafe, provided you ensure that the gun is unloaded. In the same way, it's not technically "unsafe" to clear the gun, point it at your cat, and pull the trigger. After all, you have cleared it. But it's still un-necessary when all you really want to do is disassemble the gun.

    Again, I don't think Glocks/XD's are unsafe. I just think this particular aspect of their operation is poorly designed.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Is it the nature of the striker system that requires the pistol to be "fired" prior to disassembly? The fact that the striker is under spring pressure in its normal state of being? I'm thinking of the M60, where the bolt must be forward before you take the butt stock off in order to reduce the pressure that the recoil springs are under...not the best analogy (and showing my age!), but I think you get where I'm coming from.
    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. #14
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Is it the nature of the striker system that requires the pistol to be "fired" prior to disassembly?
    Yes. Put bluntly, Glocks do not suffer fools lightly. High performance engines in cars and motorcycles are dangerous, if one is not up to their level of operation. Is Glock "the Supreme Handgun?" I'm not arguing that. It simply has a greater requirement of operator awareness in handling.

    The 17 was designed as the most bare-bones, easily serviced combat sidearm available, and to reduce environmentally induced function failures by that same simplicity. It fulfills those primary design criteria, as do the other models in the family.

  16. #15
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,683
    I guess this is one of those 'special topics' to me. If you do a search in this forum alone, for unintentional discharge posts, one was a poll as I recall, you'll see just how 'safe' the human mind is. If you look at the number of accidents experienced people have in autos, with power tools, etc., I doubt seriously you'd come away with an impression that competent, experienced, even professional people are immune to accidents.

    If you could see behind the scenes at the lives of these people that have experienced a UD, I'd venture to say that most will be very safety oriented and simply had a mental drop out.

    Would a different design on a Glock or XD be helpful in preventing a UD? It sure would for those that have had a UD due to the dissassembly process.

    So, let me ask this: if one uses his brain as his safety, would it be unsafe to carry a 1911 cocked with the safety off? Would it be unsafe to carry a Sig with the hammer cocked?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... 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.