I'm still wondering why his coworker asked him to remove it from the holster, and why did he?
This is a discussion on Plumber Shoots Self While Putting Gun Back in Holster within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Your finger indexed along the frame should prevent anything from getting in there. It's just not likely to happen. The much simpler explanation for a ...
Your finger indexed along the frame should prevent anything from getting in there. It's just not likely to happen. The much simpler explanation for a discharge while reholstering is, as you say, brain failure of the operator.
I'm still wondering why his coworker asked him to remove it from the holster, and why did he?
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
There was a guy that said he had three theories about raising children. Then he got married, and had three children and now has no theories! The point is that theory is fine, but ADs are happening with Glocks, and it appears moreso than with other guns.
When I took my revolver to Gunsite, we did a series of rapid fire drills. When the target turned, we had 1.5 seconds to fire as many rounds as we could before the target turned back around. For the first three or so evolutions of this, I had no problem firing all six rounds on target. But I began to slow down significantly because the custom, lightened trigger on my 686 was still heavy and long enough to fatigue my trigger finger muscle(s). The guy shooting a G21 was significantly older than me and no where near the shape I was in and he didn't have problem one pulling the trigger on his G-21 through the entire series of drills. The point here is that a Glock's trigger is easy to pull - contrary to what many claim, a Glock trigger is not like a revolver trigger. Even my custom, lightened 686 trigger was much longer and some heavier.
I discussed this at length with Ernest Langdon. He said that studies he had access to while training gov. agents, indicate that the trigger pull length gave more resistance to unintentional discharges than trigger weight. Now remember, I carry a G-17. Of all the guns I can pick, including several models of Sigs, Beretta, H&K P2000, H&K USP, BHP, 1911s, I'm carrying a Glock. So I'm not a Glock hater by any means. In fact I told someone just last night that I believe I was born to shoot Glocks. But of all those choices, and with all my training and experiences, and I've never had an UD during any of this, I fear my Glocks the most.
That doesn't mean I don't carry them - I do. I like just about everything about them including the unusual trigger pull. But as Massad Ayoob says, "The good thing about a Glock is it's easy to shoot. The bad thing about a Glock is it's easy to shoot." I know what he means.
I realize that while I might comfortably slide a Sig, XD, or 1911 under the seat to go into a no carry zone, I'm quite uncomfortable doing that with a Glock. We're not making this stuff up.
A member on GT has been following the Blackhawk Serpa holster and UDs. Guess which is the only gun that has had four UDs with this holster? Glocks. One occurred with a trainer with years of experience, so we can't write this off to inexperience, etc. We can't really claim that this was a brain failure either. Plus it is interesting that this hasn't happened with any other gun.
Placing the finger along the frame is an excellent practice, but even that doesn't prevent UDs. Again Ernst talked about how many times he has to remind SWAT team members to take their fingers off the trigger during drills. In a real life incident, a gun guy type LEO had his Glock drawn on a BG in a very tense moment. When the incident was over, a fellow officer asked him if he was aware he had his finger on the trigger. He had no idea that he did and no recollection of putting his finger on the trigger. So the idea that the finger on the frame is the ultimate safety simply isn't as safe as we'd like to think.
I never said, nor even implied, that it was "the ultimate safety." I said it ought to prevent foreign objects from entering the trigger guard while reholstering. I also don't think the fact that some people develop bad habits, or take time to work out of them, excuses those bad habits or means those bad habits are inevitable. Stress doesn't turn you into a drooling, lobster-clawed idiot necessarily.
My biggest problem when shooting under high-stress drills has been racking the slide when I didn't need to, or forgetting how to perform a clearance drill (I once whacked the slide of my Glock after a misfeed caused by limp-wristing during support-hand shooting, thoroughly jamming the gun, because under stress I thought all it needed to do was seat properly). At no time did I put my finger on the trigger while reholstering. I am not exactly superhuman. If I can be trained to treat the weapon with respect and a very healthy caution, anyone can.
There are two different issues being discussed in this thread. One is that the Glock has a light trigger pull and no manual safety -- facts I don't dispute. These features make it a very simple weapon to operate, one that I've managed to use safely in every one of the multiple-day, high-pressure shooting classes I've taken. My G19 has thousands of rounds through it because it has traveled with me to all of these, and it is my carry gun because it is the tool with which I have practiced most.
The second issue is whether the Glock is likely to discharge itself (or simply more likely to do so) for some reason other than that the guy holding the gun pulled the trigger (intentionally or unintentionally).
I am saying, quite simply, that (let's invoke Occam's Razor here)h if the gun went off when it wasn't supposed to go off, it is much, much more likely that the person holding that gun pulled the trigger than it is that some foreign object or some random convergence of events pulled it for him. I think people tend to blame the gun ("The Glock is unsafe!") or the accessories ("My holster flap somehow snaked into the trigger guard and pulled the trigger!") because it is easier to believe this than it is to blame operator failure.
(So which is it? We can't have it both ways. Either the gun's design made it more likely that the gun was discharged by a foreign object, or the gun's design made it easier for the person holding it to pull the trigger without thinking.)
I almost experienced an negligent discharge once -- with a Taurus PT92, about as safety-laden a gun as you are likely to find without the addition of a grip safety. At the last minute, I checked what I was doing -- and didn't pull the trigger on a chambered round. No amount of mechanical safeties would have stopped me from firing a round through the wall of my study if I hadn't engaged my brain first.
When I handle my Glock, I do so with the same respect I would give a venomous snake. I know that if I don't handle it firmly, consistently, and carefully, it will bite me or someone else. To date I have had no trouble doing so. There is nothing inherently unsafe about the design. There is, however, nothing artificially safe about it, either.
Perhaps that's the difference or the gulf in opinion here. I don't expect my gun to do my thinking for me, or save me from myself. That is obviously what safety devices are designed to do and I can understand that. I just don't believe in depending on them.
I haven't seen any issue about Glocks discharging themselves. The only issue I've seen is that Glocks have a lighter, shorter trigger pull and no way to detect or stop inadvertent trigger activation.
I'm not saying Glocks can't be susccessfully carried; I carry one as much as any gun I own, but I consider a Glock to have a some greater potental of a "foreign object" discharge.
I just read an article by Mas Ayoob this month about an officer that holstered his gun and didn't realize some coat material, may have been a zipper, got caught in his trigger. This was one of the stranger ones, because it didn't go off right then. But as he got out of his car, the stretch on the coat was enough to discharge the gun.
The article did not identify the brand of gun, but it stands to reason that the "softer" the trigger, the more potential for an accident.
I also read an account of a veteran LEO, after a life and death shooting, holstered his DA/SA Beretta in a cocked condition. That's has even more potential for an accident than a Glock. There's nothing wrong with identifying and acknowledging the weak points in our equipment and making adjustments to minimize problems.
Phil, I don't doubt for a second that you have carried a Glock for many years and fired many rounds through it without incident - I can say the same thing. But we can't assume that every one will have the same results. There's just too much out there to continune ignore.
Nobody should expect their gun to save them from themselves, but just like with power tools, there are safe guards that can be put in place to help us when we have a brain failure. If the brain is so effective, we should be able to carry a 1911 cocked, without the thumb safety on. Why not? As long as we don't put our finger on the trigger when we shouldn't and the grip safety is not disengaged or defeated, why wouldn't it be perfectly safe? Could it be that, in general, we do in fact need some protection from ourselves?
Lighter triggers contribute to easier discharge (hence the aversion to "hair" triggers). Trigger guards, holster design, safety standards all contribute to avoiding easy discharge. But in the end, the tool is used by humans. As such, there are no certainties: not even for a Glock in the hands of an expert.