PDA

View Full Version : Glock: The Rise of America's Gun


safewaysecurity
01-29-2012, 5:46 PM
Don't know if this is the right forum but I saw and heard a few interviews with the author of the new book "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun". The author seems extremely neutral in his interviews and seems to just focus on the facts. But I do feel like he has those anti-gun tendancies. I learned some things about the history of glock that I didn't know like how the Glock 17 was named because it was Gaston Glock's 17th patent and not because it holds 17 shots or anything like that. Also that the NYPD banned the glock by name for civilians as well as LE. And that Gaston Glock was a curtain rod maker and didn't know anything about guns when he decided to make one. Here are some interviews.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/145956475/fresh-air-weekend-glocks-david-milch-the-smiths

UpVFKFoBOsg

liL-aKRBD-4

winnre
01-29-2012, 5:48 PM
This is what, the third thread on this?

safewaysecurity
01-29-2012, 5:54 PM
This is what, the third thread on this?

Mine has interviews though. And I believe the old threads were before the book came out.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 3:43 AM
Glock is the one brand I dislike because it doesn't have a safety.

Despite my long-standing opinion on Glock, I was recently considering the Glock 36 because it seemed like a good mix of concealability and my favorite caliber 45 ACP.

After watching the video interview, I'm again convinced to not get the Glock. It's way too easy to shoot yourself in the leg. I didn't know it was a Glock that Plaxico Burris shot himself with, but yes that's funny. That's one of the things I learned in the video.

I carry an LCP which also doesn't have a safety; however, it has such a long trigger pull it makes a difference. Glock is too easy to accidentally discharge while holstering.

Because of the number of accidents with Glock leg, the company should feel responsible for the poor safety design. Guns are carried to be a tool of protection, and if you have a large number of incidents hurting the "carrier" then it's a bad design. Extra safety training doesn't make up for it. You should be that safe plus one, carrying a gun with a safety.

I liked hearing some of the history of Glock. I also hadn't seen that movie US Marshals that they showed a clip of. I also liked the insertion of several clips of Hickok45 from YouTube that I recognized. The main thing I take away though is to rule out the Glock 36 from my purchase consideration reminded of the too unsafe nature of their easy trigger with no safety.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 4:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0

He actually says he's the most professional just before he shoots himself with a Glock. LOL

SanPedroShooter
01-30-2012, 5:15 AM
Oh boy.....

The War Wagon
01-30-2012, 5:20 AM
Glock: The Rise of America's Gun


Glock makes a 1911 now?!?! :eek: http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

jonc
01-30-2012, 5:21 AM
still a great start up gun...

Cobrafreak
01-30-2012, 5:35 AM
True, the Glock has not external safety, but it has passive safeties. I prefer 1911's myself, but I'm in the minority.

Moto
01-30-2012, 6:03 AM
Glock is the one brand I dislike because it doesn't have a safety.

Despite my long-standing opinion on Glock, I was recently considering the Glock 36 because it seemed like a good mix of concealability and my favorite caliber 45 ACP.

After watching the video interview, I'm again convinced to not get the Glock. It's way too easy to shoot yourself in the leg. I didn't know it was a Glock that Plaxico Burris shot himself with, but yes that's funny. That's one of the things I learned in the video.

I carry an LCP which also doesn't have a safety; however, it has such a long trigger pull it makes a difference. Glock is too easy to accidentally discharge while holstering.

Because of the number of accidents with Glock leg, the company should feel responsible for the poor safety design. Guns are carried to be a tool of protection, and if you have a large number of incidents hurting the "carrier" then it's a bad design. Extra safety training doesn't make up for it. You should be that safe plus one, carrying a gun with a safety.

I liked hearing some of the history of Glock. I also hadn't seen that movie US Marshals that they showed a clip of. I also liked the insertion of several clips of Hickok45 from YouTube that I recognized. The main thing I take away though is to rule out the Glock 36 from my purchase consideration reminded of the too unsafe nature of their easy trigger with no safety.

Guns don't have negligent discharges, people do.

I prefer The Glock models for not having all the idiotic levers and knobs sticking out of it because the handler might be a dumb a--.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 6:26 AM
Guns don't have negligent discharges, people do.

I prefer The Glock models for not having all the idiotic levers and knobs sticking out of it because the handler might be a dumb a--.

All those police officers shooting themselves in the leg were just dumb--sses, that's what it was.

...no wait, the stats say it was when they switched to Glock is when all those accidental leg shootings happen.

Moto
01-30-2012, 6:54 AM
All those police officers shooting themselves in the leg were just dumb--sses, that's what it was.

...no wait, the stats say it was when they switched to Glock is when all those accidental leg shootings happen.

Yes absolutely they were dumb a sses.
Add to that they were used to revolvers with 12 pound triggers. You did watch the video right? Add to that they probably shouldn't have been pulling the triggers while still practically in the holster.
The author in the video does state that after finally training the officers, those so called negligent discharges stopped.

You do realize that about 70% of police officers now a days use Glocks.
Do you feel worried standing next to a leo?

You might as well joint the " guns kill people " crowd. Sheesh

jb7706
01-30-2012, 7:22 AM
All those police officers shooting themselves in the leg were just dumb--sses, that's what it was.

...no wait, the stats say it was when they switched to Glock is when all those accidental leg shootings happen.

Until last year there had never been an incident where "civilian" shot themselves in the leg/foot at a local range. Every single incident was LEO, none were using Glock's. All were in fact DA/SA guns with all those fancy external safeties.

It's not the gun, it's the operator. The more we are around them, the more likely we are to do something dumb and get hurt out of sheer complacency. One of many things that stuck in my head from an Ayoob class was to treat your handgun as you would a pet rattlesnake. NEVER lose your respect, for it's then you will get bit.

Maestro Pistolero
01-30-2012, 7:42 AM
1. Keep yer booger picker off the trigger and you'll be fine.
2. Anyone can have a negligent discharge.
3. As soon as you believe this can't happen to you, you are on dangerous ground.
3. Glocks require a proper holster even more than other designs. I am NEVER in a hurry when re-holstering. No one ever won a gunfight by re-holstering quickly.
4. If relied upon in lieu of proper gun handling habits, external safeties (including the DA pull on a DA/SA gun) can lead to a false sense of security and laziness about trigger discipline.
5. Again, keep yer booger picker off the trigger.

Wherryj
01-30-2012, 8:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0

He actually says he's the most professional just before he shoots himself with a Glock. LOL

...footnote...he's at least one person in the room who's not professional enough to carry the Glock 40.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 11:15 AM
The author in the video does state that after finally training the officers, those so called negligent discharges stopped.

You do realize that about 70% of police officers now a days use Glocks.
Do you feel worried standing next to a leo?

You might as well joint the " guns kill people " crowd. Sheesh

He didn't say they stopped. He said they were reduced with more training.

The 70% market share is only a guess. Glock reports on their website that approximately 65% of LE agencies use Glock. Of course, like LAPD, the agencies could also be using other handgun models too, so the Stat doesn't translate into market share.

Here's an article that explains why all you can do is guess at market share...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/gun-business-defies-analysis/

Glock rose in market share to become the leader with LE because of the lighter polymer frame to carry and good sales marketing, etc. I'd bet their overall market share is on a downward trend though since there's more competition now.

I wouldn't be worried about standing next to a person with a Glock, because the danger is to his leg, not mine.

The way to really settle the debate would be if we knew all these stats...
Percentage of times a traditional safety has caused the good guy to not return fire compared to the percentage of times a good guy has unitentially fired because it didn't have a traditional safety.

Out of all the guns I know of, I think Springfield XD has it best. No safety to worry about disengaging, but also doesn't rely solo on the trigger safety. I have almost 20 guns myself including an XDm, and I'd say the safety mix on the XDm is perfect.

No thanks, I won't be joining the antis as you suggest.

safewaysecurity
01-30-2012, 11:30 AM
Glocks not having a safety is actually a plus for me. I don't think I would ever carry a pistol with the safety engaged unless I felt like carrying a 1911.

TwoAsoapbox
01-30-2012, 11:34 AM
Mine has interviews though. And I believe the old threads were before the book came out.
Who cares if there has already been a post or not?

If you dont want to be involved in a thread for whatever reason than just ignore it and move on. Let the moderators determine if a thread is redundant, is in the wrong forum, etc. Jeez.

To the OP, thanks for the thread and taking the time to find the interviews.

safewaysecurity
01-30-2012, 11:36 AM
No problem.

TwoAsoapbox
01-30-2012, 11:38 AM
Until last year there had never been an incident where "civilian" shot themselves in the leg/foot at a local range. Every single incident was LEO, none were using Glock's. All were in fact DA/SA guns with all those fancy external safeties.

It's not the gun, it's the operator. The more we are around them, the more likely we are to do something dumb and get hurt out of sheer complacency. One of many things that stuck in my head from an Ayoob class was to treat your handgun as you would a pet rattlesnake. NEVER lose your respect, for it's then you will get bit.
Yep, forgetting to "de-cock."

I personally know someone who had an AD and shot themselves in the butt cheek with a Sig. He too was LE. He was ok and I give him crap about it from time to time.

The Cable Guy
01-30-2012, 11:43 AM
A manual safety is a crutch for those who can't seem to comprehend the whole "keep your finger off the trigger" rule. The fact of the matter is that a Glock, like most guns, will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. If you happen to shoot yourself in the leg, that's bad training and poor firearms handling, not a lack of a safety.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 12:47 PM
A manual safety is a crutch for those who can't seem to comprehend the whole "keep your finger off the trigger" rule. The fact of the matter is that a Glock, like most guns, will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. If you happen to shoot yourself in the leg, that's bad training and poor firearms handling, not a lack of a safety.

I totally disagree. Read the true story above about the frayed holster.

Crutch is for people with Glock leg to use... A secondary point of safety is not a "crutch" but will nearly eliminate glock leg accidents to a higher level than training alone can do. I mentioned Springfield's XD system because it accomplishes both secondary point of safety and you don't have to worry about disengaging the safety either. Just gripping the handle and squeezing the trigger automatically disengages both safety points naturally.

Glock zealots arguing against a secondary point of safety aren't using reason or logic. The number of times a safety has saved an AD can't be counted because the gun fortunately didn't go off.

Caladain
01-30-2012, 1:03 PM
I totally disagree. Read the true story above about the frayed holster.

Crutch is for people with Glock leg to use... A secondary point of safety is not a "crutch" but will nearly eliminate glock leg accidents to a higher level than training alone can do. I mentioned Springfield's XD system because it accomplishes both secondary point of safety and you don't have to worry about disengaging the safety either. Just gripping the handle and squeezing the trigger automatically disengages both safety points naturally.

Glock zealots arguing against a secondary point of safety aren't using reason or logic. The number of times a safety has saved an AD can't be counted because the gun fortunately didn't go off.

The XD can still have a bit of holster catch in the trigger guard and activate the trigger when holstering. You *can* learn to holster the XD without engaging the backstrap, but it's a different grip than what you'd normally go for.

Also, AD's into your leg happen with 1911's too, and sigs. Look up the video of Tex shooting himself.

Moto
01-30-2012, 2:20 PM
@MARTHUR
I'm not trying to have a pissing contest with you. Heck hopefully we're all in the same team here. :)
But you're making a big stink about no safety as if you are so much more inclined to ND.
I disagree. The ONLY WAY a Glock will fire is if the opperator pulls the trigger. I've read and watched videos about many people who were carrying their 1911's forgeting that the safety was off and accidentally shooting a round off. Yeah they have light triggers.

I'm sure you can perform a negligent discharge on the XD also.

Me personally (and this is my opinion) I'd rather not have those so called safety levers.
Not many people here have been in an extreme stress situation where a bad guy is coming at you with weapons in hand and the quicker you pull your gun out and be ready to shoot the better. One less step (where you don't have to disengauge a safety bar) can be beneficial.

You do't have to agree with it. Just understand that it took someone to pull that glock trigger for it to shoot.

winnre
01-30-2012, 2:25 PM
@MARTHUR

I disagree. The ONLY WAY a Glock will fire is if the opperator pulls the trigger.


Or if your holster pulls the trigger:

http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/safety-warning-worn-leather-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

Marthor
01-30-2012, 2:56 PM
The ONLY WAY a Glock will fire is if the opperator pulls the trigger.… Just understand that it took someone to pull that glock trigger for it to shoot.

Well you probably shouldn't post stuff like that after someone posted the holster link above earlier. No trigger finger was involved. Bang.

Perhaps another scenario is if you're holstered,but fell down and landed on a protrusion that happened to push deep into the trigger well. I'd probably rule out leather or nylon holsters all together to be used with Glocks. I'd use hard plastic that fully covers the trigger well.

If you're going to carry Glock, you should also make sure to have the right holster. Even if you have the right holster, you also should be extra careful with a Glock when putting into the holster that you're not catching the trigger on the way in since there's nothing else preventing discharge.

I'm not overblowing it at all. All guns require great carefulness, but Glock requires even more care because you've forgone the second point of safety that other guns have. No need for anyone to get POed about that truth.

JohnnyG
01-30-2012, 3:28 PM
I've seen external safeties lead to a LOT of "false security". How many times have we heard someone say, "don't worry the safety is on" and then go on to violate more than one of the safe gun handling rules simultaneously just because the "safety" is on? I've witnessed that exact thing at public ranges many, many times over. I think they create more problems than they fix, particularly for professionals who must carry a handgun regularly. Glocks force good training standards, and I like that.

Any reliance on gadgets and widgets squarely outside the 4 safe handling rules is playing with fire in my opinion.

YMMV.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 3:37 PM
Also, AD's into your leg happen with 1911's too, and sigs. Look up the video of Tex shooting himself.

That's an interesting video. That was big of him to post what happened on youtube. He was well trained and experienced and mature enough to share for the benefit of others.

He self-analysed what he thought went wrong. I'd add a few things to the critique. For speed, he was trading off all safety. He said he disengages the safety on the downstroke and then presses in on the holster release on the upstroke. Carrying over his release pressure into the trigger well. His proximity to the target also showed that he was trading all safety for speed. He said he's done that draw 1000 times.

Anyway, what I'd do and do do different is I draw and then disengage the safety. Maybe it's a fraction of a second slower to do it that way, but I won't ever shoot myself. That's safety raised to 100%.

I agree with the other part of his self-analysis. He said he was practicing a different holster earlier. Yep, that'll mess you up. I have almost 20 guns but only 1 to belt carry. The others are just for my collection and range shooting. Between the many guns to choose from, I only actually belt carry my Beretta Px4 Storm 45. So, it's draw, then flick off the safety entrained for me. Considering Tex's video reiterates it's best to only carry-train on 1 gun.

Oh, well i also do cowboy action shooting. It's draw, then cock the hammer. Same order of safety. Draw then cock the hammer. It may be a fraction of a second slower, but I won't ever shoot myself and I still think it's fast.

fullrearview
01-30-2012, 4:00 PM
All those police officers shooting themselves in the leg were just dumb--sses, that's what it was.

...no wait, the stats say it was when they switched to Glock is when all those accidental leg shootings happen.

:rolleyes:

Come on guy... I am a cop and a range instructor... I'm here to tell you that each and every one of those officers were idiots and shot themselves through negligence... NOT the Glock itself. This coming from a guy who does not like Glocks.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 4:28 PM
:rolleyes:

Come on guy... I am a cop and a range instructor... I'm here to tell you that each and every one of those officers were idiots and shot themselves through negligence... NOT the Glock itself. This coming from a guy who does not like Glocks.

So, when a noticable rise in incidents happened when they switched to Glock, it was just coincidence that they hired a bunch of idiots at the same timing? No, it was the new lighter trigger Glock without a secondary safety.

Better training was implemented to reduce accidental discharge, but same training with secondary safety will still be "safer".

JohnnyG
01-30-2012, 4:58 PM
...
Better training was implemented to reduce accidental discharge, but same training with secondary safety will still be "safer".

It *might* be safer from an ND perspective with a secondary safety, but I would be willing to bet that it would be far more dangerous from a deployment-to-save-your-life perspective. You see, your reasoning assumes that any benefit from a secondary safety is due to incomplete/improper training. Why else would one need a secondary safety? If incomplete training is assumed, then why wouldn't we also assume that the same officers would also have problems properly deploying and disengaging the safety? They are very similar symptoms of incomplete motor skill training. The only exception might be holster snags and such, but I really don't think that most of these ND's are snags. In most cases, "it went off" = "i pulled the trigger and don't want to admit it".

The Cable Guy
01-30-2012, 5:06 PM
I totally disagree. Read the true story above about the frayed holster.

Crutch is for people with Glock leg to use... A secondary point of safety is not a "crutch" but will nearly eliminate glock leg accidents to a higher level than training alone can do. I mentioned Springfield's XD system because it accomplishes both secondary point of safety and you don't have to worry about disengaging the safety either. Just gripping the handle and squeezing the trigger automatically disengages both safety points naturally.

Glock zealots arguing against a secondary point of safety aren't using reason or logic. The number of times a safety has saved an AD can't be counted because the gun fortunately didn't go off.

Read the title: SAFETY WARNING! Worn Leather Holsters Can Cause Accidental Discharges!

Didn't see where it said the Glock caused the discharge. Could it have been avoided with adding a manual safety? Yes, but it could have been avoided with proper care and inspection of your gear.

I remember this story very well. I remember when it was posted up by the actual user. He blamed it on himself, and complacency for not thoroughly inspecting his gear.

I actually like the fact that the Glock does not have an external safety. Under stress, many people often forget to disengage a safety before pulling the trigger. Of course this can be corrected with training, but I'm sure many of us who shoot competitively have seen new shooters draw their 1911s, M92s, or Sigs and pull the trigger without releasing the safety. Luckily at a match, they lose a few seconds, in a real life situation where the stress is even greater than a timer, they can lose their lives.

Marthor
01-30-2012, 5:14 PM
It *might* be safer from an ND perspective with a secondary safety, but I would be willing to bet that it would be far more dangerous from a deployment-to-save-your-life perspective. You see, your reasoning assumes that any benefit from a secondary safety is due to incomplete/improper training. Why else would one need a secondary safety? If incomplete training is assumed, then why wouldn't we also assume that the same officers would also have problems properly deploying and disengaging the safety? They are very similar symptoms of incomplete motor skill training. The only exception might be holster snags and such, but I really don't think that most of these ND's are snags. In most cases, "it went off" = "i pulled the trigger and don't want to admit it".

We touched on that earlier. To settle the debate, we'd need to have the stats available of how many good guys are hindered in their return fire by a safety compared to how many accidental dischargers there are without a safety compared to how many accidental discharges are prevented because of the safety, etc... and then that led to the mention of the Springfield XD system with two points of safety, but you don't have to worry about disengaging a safety, so I suggested that might be the perfect blend.

JohnnyG
01-30-2012, 5:22 PM
I agree: the truth probably lies with the stats as far as good vs. harm with the external safety in the context of law enforcement use. That kinda makes my point too though, which is that the Glock is a perfectly good carry option with lots of pros, and perhaps a few cons. Overall, it is a VERY good selection for LEO work in my opinion.

I don't personally see any benefit to adding a back strap safety. Aren't holster snags/issues your main argument against the Glock? Ok, but how does a back strap safety help that situation? Aren't you still gripping the back strap when you re-holster an XD?

jwkincal
01-30-2012, 5:23 PM
I think that guns with biometric safeties will be even safer. Eventually they'll make smart guns that won't discharge unless the intent has been detected by the passive frontal cortex feedback analyzer, that will be REALLY safe.

Or perhaps people in possession of firearms should be held responsible?

Nah, too obvious. Hey, what is the original topic of this thread anyway?

12voltguy
01-30-2012, 5:46 PM
That's an interesting video. That was big of him to post what happened on youtube. He was well trained and experienced and mature enough to share for the benefit of others.

He self-analysed what he thought went wrong. I'd add a few things to the critique. For speed, he was trading off all safety. He said he disengages the safety on the downstroke and then presses in on the holster release on the upstroke. Carrying over his release pressure into the trigger well. His proximity to the target also showed that he was trading all safety for speed. He said he's done that draw 1000 times.

Anyway, what I'd do and do do different is I draw and then disengage the safety. Maybe it's a fraction of a second slower to do it that way, but I won't ever shoot myself. That's safety raised to 100%.

I agree with the other part of his self-analysis. He said he was practicing a different holster earlier. Yep, that'll mess you up. I have almost 20 guns but only 1 to belt carry. The others are just for my collection and range shooting. Between the many guns to choose from, I only actually belt carry my Beretta Px4 Storm 45. So, it's draw, then flick off the safety entrained for me. Considering Tex's video reiterates it's best to only carry-train on 1 gun.

Oh, well i also do cowboy action shooting. It's draw, then cock the hammer. Same order of safety. Draw then cock the hammer. It may be a fraction of a second slower, but I won't ever shoot myself and I still think it's fast.

I see he has fooled you........guy is a tool, he is not close to well trained.
if you watch several of his videos made after that, it is clear he shouldn't even be around a sharp stick:facepalm:

Nahuatl
01-31-2012, 7:34 AM
I don't know if anyone else put the linky to the book by Paul Barret, nor am I going to go look. With that proviso, this is not a review; it's the whole book
No, this is not a good idea. I'm as price-sensitive as anyone when it comes to books, but this is hardly the treatment we want to give to authors.

// Librarian

I did not upload it.

“I was getting acquainted, when you pull a trigger that it makes boom.” - Gaston Glock

windrunner
01-31-2012, 9:20 AM
There is no such thing as an accidental discharge. I don't know why some of you guys are arguing the point. I know all of you have heard it before.

It's the same thing with driving a car. There is no such thing as a car accident. A car collision is always attributed to the negligence of one or more drivers.

Negligent discharges didn't all of a sudden hit the scene and become an epidemic because Gaston Glock decided to build a handgun without a conventional safety lever. Negligent discharges were around long before then.

Firearms, like cars, are not autonomous objects. They don't have minds of their own. It takes the negligence of human operators to make them unsafe. You could keep your car sitting in your garage and never drive it. Once you sit in the driver's seat and go out among the general population and get stupid, then it becomes an object of danger. I could take a loaded firearm and set it on a table in front of me. It could have 15 different safety switches, gadgets, etc. or none at all. Hell I'll even point the thing at myself. I could sit their all day long and stare at that firearm and it will pose no harm to me whatsoever. Until I pick it up and get stupid with it, then it becomes a hazard to myself and anyone else around.

I was having a conversation with a guy several years ago. A man with a helluva lot more experience and proficiency at handling numerous firearms than the majority of people any of us will ever meet. I was receiving some instruction from him and our conversation turned to ND's. Both of us had experienced ND's in our lives and we shared those experiences and what we learned from them. He said one of the most profound things I've ever had someone say to me.

"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who've had negligent discharges and those who will have negligent discharges."

Get3CoffinsReady
02-01-2012, 1:04 AM
If you feel like you are too clumsy to keep your finger off of the trigger on a glock then you probably shouldn't have one. Guess revolvers are out of the question for you too.
more for me :)

Mulay El Raisuli
02-01-2012, 4:02 AM
Mine has interviews though. And I believe the old threads were before the book came out.


In one of the interviews, he mentions that Glock had his press credentials pulled. Why on Earth would they do that????


True, the Glock has not external safety, but it has passive safeties. I prefer 1911's myself, but I'm in the minority.


I'm in an even smaller minority. I prefer revolvers for self defense.


The Raisuli

Goosebrown
02-01-2012, 4:23 AM
In one of the interviews, he mentions that Glock had his press credentials pulled. Why on Earth would they do that????

Well I think that much as we like Mr. Glock for his product, all reports are that he is old and crotchety. (not that that is a bad thing) I would bet that that order came from him or the top because they were personally unhappy about the book. Germans/Austrians tend to have more reserved outlook on their private lives being revealed than most of us do here.

Things like that happen in most industries, and the gun industry tends to get even more individualists than most.

I would just write it off. He also stated in the interview that everyone of his contacts was happy to see him and talk and give information. All it really meant was that he couldn't walk the show floor.

Herodotus
02-01-2012, 5:09 AM
Glock is the one brand I dislike because it doesn't have a safety...


I carry an LCP which also doesn't have a safety; however, it has such a long trigger pull it makes a difference. Glock is too easy to accidentally discharge while holstering.

You could always install either the (New York) N.Y.1 or N.Y.2 trigger. Gives a heavier *and* more consistent trigger pull. You can install them yourself in a few minutes. Link:http://eu.glock.com/english/options_triggerspring.htm

I have the N.Y.1 installed on my Glock 19 and 34. Much preferred, for me, over the lighter stock pull. It's heavier but much more consistent.


N.Y.2 at Glockmeister: http://www.glockmeister.com/GLOCK-New-York-Trigger-Spring-2-12-LBs/productinfo/G7412/

N.Y.1 at Glockmeister: http://www.glockmeister.com/New-York-Trigger-Spring-1-8-LBs/productinfo/G7405/

Sincerely.

formerTexan
02-01-2012, 11:43 PM
I don't think the author is as neutral as he tries to present himself to be. Read this article he wrote in BusinessWeek just after the AZ shootings:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm
He wants to ban sale AND possession of standard capacity magazines (on page 5 of the article, towards the end).

Mulay El Raisuli
02-02-2012, 4:34 AM
I don't think the author is as neutral as he tries to present himself to be. Read this article he wrote in BusinessWeek just after the AZ shootings:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm
He wants to ban sale AND possession of standard capacity magazines (on page 5 of the article, towards the end).


No, he ain't even close to neutral. One example:

At the same time, the NRA—a powerful and, for the industry, inexpensive lobbying arm that is funded mostly by gun-owner members—was stepping up a nationwide campaign in support of state laws that gave civilians the right to carry concealed handguns to shopping malls, Little League games, and almost anywhere else.

Oh, the horror! The horror!

The cover photo is a Glock with the words, "The Killing Machine" printed over it.

There's more, but in spite of that, the author is still connected to the truth in spite of his obvious prejudice. On the last page, discussing why crime rates have fallen, we see:


Gun control advocates credit point-of-purchase background checks and the assault weapons bill. More rigorous studies indicate that those laws actually had negligible effects on crime, according to (UCLA public policy professor Mark A.R. ) Kleiman. (emphasis mine)

He doesn't like it, but the facts are the facts & he felt the need to report them.


Well I think that much as we like Mr. Glock for his product, all reports are that he is old and crotchety. (not that that is a bad thing) I would bet that that order came from him or the top because they were personally unhappy about the book. Germans/Austrians tend to have more reserved outlook on their private lives being revealed than most of us do here.

Things like that happen in most industries, and the gun industry tends to get even more individualists than most.

I would just write it off. He also stated in the interview that everyone of his contacts was happy to see him and talk and give information. All it really meant was that he couldn't walk the show floor.


What a fussbudget!


The Raisuli

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 5:33 AM
He doesn't like it, but the facts are the facts & he felt the need to report them.

He's a member here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=104539).

Mulay El Raisuli
02-03-2012, 6:18 AM
He's a member here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=104539).


Being a member here doesn't necessarily mean that he's one of us. He could be a member just so he can get info on the topic.


The Raisuli

eaglemike
02-03-2012, 7:33 AM
He didn't say they stopped. He said they were reduced with more training.

The 70% market share is only a guess. Glock reports on their website that approximately 65% of LE agencies use Glock. Of course, like LAPD, the agencies could also be using other handgun models too, so the Stat doesn't translate into market share.

Here's an article that explains why all you can do is guess at market share...
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/gun-business-defies-analysis/

Glock rose in market share to become the leader with LE because of the lighter polymer frame to carry and good sales marketing, etc. I'd bet their overall market share is on a downward trend though since there's more competition now.

I wouldn't be worried about standing next to a person with a Glock, because the danger is to his leg, not mine.

The way to really settle the debate would be if we knew all these stats...
Percentage of times a traditional safety has caused the good guy to not return fire compared to the percentage of times a good guy has unitentially fired because it didn't have a traditional safety.

Out of all the guns I know of, I think Springfield XD has it best. No safety to worry about disengaging, but also doesn't rely solo on the trigger safety. I have almost 20 guns myself including an XDm, and I'd say the safety mix on the XDm is perfect.

No thanks, I won't be joining the antis as you suggest.
Goodness....

I know of LEO that shot themselves in the leg with a Sig 226 SA/DA pistol. It can happen with any gun if basic safety rules are not followed. During my many years as an RSO, the most unsafe I ever felt was during a match that had LEO's involved. They ignored range safety rules constantly. The average competition shooter is FAR safer than the average LEO in my experience.

BTW, I've seen XDM's fail under moderate use. Just quit working using factory ammunition at a Front Sight 4 day course. Broken action parts. Fortunately there was a spare in the armory.

If I was allowed one handgun and it had to be a pistol, I'd likely choose a G17.

Unfortunately, the writer of the book doesn't fully understand what he's writing about IMO.

Mesa Tactical
02-20-2012, 11:04 AM
Just got my copy of Glock: The Rise of America's Gun.

There are promotional blurbs on the back cover. Now every ful no that if a book manages to piss off both sides of a debate, it has to be good. But Glock is having the opposite effect!

http://www.mesatactical.com/images/307.jpg

Looking forward to reading it right after I finish C.J. Chivers' The Gun.

BTW, speaking of Cameron Hopkins, he was the model for this logo:

http://www.mesatactical.com/images/237.jpg

Anyone notice the resemblance?

bulgron
02-20-2012, 11:15 AM
I just finished reading that book last week. I found it to be well-written and quite interesting from an historical point of view. I did part company with the author when he stated certain opinions on gun control. What puzzled me was why he even bothered to state his opinions in the first place. The book certainly didn't require it, and I believe that he only weakened the book by diverting from historical facts to dive into political opinions.

Don'tBlink
02-20-2012, 2:33 PM
When I was about 13 or 14 (A long, long time ago), I was practicing fast draw with a Ruger single action. Due to a lack of training, poor timing and a lack of common sense; my trigger finger was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bullet grazed my calf (I still have a scar) and hit the ground about 1/2 inch behind my heel. I'm lucky to be walking without a limp.

Ever since (and I believe any good instructor will tell you to) I keep my trigger finger outside of and along the side of the trigger guard, until the gun is drawn and pointed away from my body (as I engage the target).

I was stupid and untrained. No one should own and shoot a gun without proper training. The Ruger single action did not cause the injury, I DID. :kest:

mag360
02-20-2012, 7:43 PM
All those police officers shooting themselves in the leg were just dumb--sses, that's what it was.

...no wait, the stats say it was when they switched to Glock is when all those accidental leg shootings happen.

Then you damn well better have your finger off the trigger when you re-holster. Glocks are the first handguns i've ever owned, or carried. I have a 1911 but don't carry it. The glock stays in the holster, the only time it comes out of the holster is when I switch holsters. The holster is your manual safety. There is no rush to re-holster.

Mesa Tactical
02-21-2012, 6:06 AM
No one should own and shoot a gun without proper training.

Uh oh . . .

RDinSacto
02-21-2012, 6:45 AM
There were some interesting factual portions of the book, but the author has a readiliy-apparent bias. As I recall, a couple of times he really painted NRA members with a broad negative brushstroke. I sent an e-mail to him from an e-mail address on his web page telling him that he should have had someone with a rudimentary working knowledge of Glocks do his initial proofreading - that way he wouldn't have come across as a buffoon for repeatedly stating in his book that Glocks use 'clips'. Oh, well...

Mesa Tactical
02-21-2012, 7:07 AM
There were some interesting factual portions of the book, but the author has a readiliy-apparent bias. As I recall, a couple of times he really painted NRA members with a broad negative brushstroke. I sent an e-mail to him from an e-mail address on his web page telling him that he should have had someone with a rudimentary working knowledge of Glocks do his initial proofreading - that way he wouldn't have come across as a buffoon for repeatedly stating in his book that Glocks use 'clips'. Oh, well...

I used to be a "clips" pedant, too. But then I got my hands on three separate editions of the classic Small Arms of the World from the 1960s and 1970s, in which "clip" and "magazine" are used interchangeably.

W.H.B. Smith and Edward Ezell and their successors were not and are not buffoons.

ap3572001
02-21-2012, 7:25 AM
I have been with Glocks since 1994. Was issued one.
As far as LE , Glock .40 today is what Smith and Wesson model 19/66 was in 70's and 80's. Its almost a STD.

Most people I know who actually carry a handgun all the time carry some kind of a Glock. Or at least own a Glock,

Also , at least in my circles , most people who buy a Glock do not by it because of a price. Its a pistol of choice for them. And for me.

PS. I also noticed that people who carry all the time have a different view on Glocks than people who only carry sometimes or not at all.

fd15k
02-21-2012, 9:01 AM
at 7:35 in the first vid, the presenter says "Brady Campaign to prevent gun control" :D