PA state trooper disassenbled my gun during traffic stop

[Williamsmith]

My opinion is not baseless. As someone that carried multiple Glocks professionally for over a decade, a firearms instructor, a gun carrier for over 30 years and a shooter for 45 years, I know what I'm talking about and I'm qualified to make the statement I've made. The design of the Glock is inherently less safe than other designs in regards to negligent discharges. If you understand firearms and how they function, it's easy to see why the statement is valid. I've explained the rationale.

Being able to put a thumb over a hammer when holstering makes an ND next to impossible.
Having a frame/slide safety engaged when holstering makes an ND next to impossible.
Having a grip safety that remains engaged when holstering makes an ND next to impossible.

A trigger safety is not, can not be as safe as other designs because the anomaly that engages the trigger also releases the safety. There is no redundancy on a striker fired/trigger-safety-only pistol that prevents the discharge of the firearm.

This isn't to say other designs are ND proof, we know people have fucked up with a variety of pistols. It's the lack of redundancy in the design. And no, I don't hate Glocks, I own 4 of them. I also own a couple of S&W M&Ps.

Let’s start with assumption that despite your training and experience claimed above, you still are in a position to be persuaded differently. Otherwise you are approaching the discussion with a closed mind based on you perspective and your unique experiences which may not be reflective of the real truth about the Glock.

Regarding your training and experience, I will put my professional experience and resume against yours without hesitation but shall we dispense with silly claims of ones training and experience on an anonymous forum and proceed straightforward into discussion of the merits, on the veracity of what is written.

You are making the claim....Glocks are inherently dangerous because they have a unique tendency to cause humans to have NDs. My point is that what makes the Glock such a popular firearm and has put them in the hands of countless law enforcement and military personnel also has exposed the weakness of training by those same organizations. I would expect a firearms instructor from PSP to attack the Glock given the history of the firearm with the organization. The Glocks trigger mechanism prevents discharge unless pressure is applied to the face of the trigger, a plunger will not allow the firing pin to move forward until the trigger is pulled and a shoe at the rear of the trigger bar blocks the the firing pin until the trigger is pulled. The Glock is virtually impossible to drop and experience a ND unlike other firearms.

What you are saying is that the Glock will fire if you inadvertently pull the trigger. Which is understandable for a firearms instructor with a department that chooses their weapon to meet the requirements of the worst firearms handlers they have to train. What is the response then? Don’t pull the damn trigger until you want to destroy something.

As a firearms instructor you are probably aware of incidents of NDs with Glocks that we’re never released to the public because it would embarrass the department. Those ND were all of a nature that could be attributed to handling errors not to any failure of the mechanism of the firearm. If you have documentation of a failure attributed to the Glock and no mishandling by the person holding it....please tell us Glock owners so we can have the firearm repaired.

Safe handling of firearms can only be accomplished by the person. The Glock is a safe firearm with a design that fits the job. Again, I request any incidents where the ND was a result of the failure of any part of the Glock.

[Williamsmith]

If I missed it I’m sorry. What do you think about the issue of the OP? Would you recommend disassembling a persons Glock after temporarily taking it from them on a traffic stop? And then would you return it in its disassembled state?

[unclejumbo]

Let’s start with assumption that despite your training and experience claimed above, you still are in a position to be persuaded differently. Otherwise you are approaching the discussion with a closed mind based on you perspective and your unique experiences which may not be reflective of the real truth about the Glock.

Regarding your training and experience, I will put my professional experience and resume against yours without hesitation but shall we dispense with silly claims of ones training and experience on an anonymous forum and proceed straightforward into discussion of the merits, on the veracity of what is written.

You are making the claim....Glocks are inherently dangerous because they have a unique tendency to cause humans to have NDs. My point is that what makes the Glock such a popular firearm and has put them in the hands of countless law enforcement and military personnel also has exposed the weakness of training by those same organizations. I would expect a firearms instructor from PSP to attack the Glock given the history of the firearm with the organization. The Glocks trigger mechanism prevents discharge unless pressure is applied to the face of the trigger, a plunger will not allow the firing pin to move forward until the trigger is pulled and a shoe at the rear of the trigger bar blocks the the firing pin until the trigger is pulled. The Glock is virtually impossible to drop and experience a ND unlike other firearms.

What you are saying is that the Glock will fire if you inadvertently pull the trigger. Which is understandable for a firearms instructor with a department that chooses their weapon to meet the requirements of the worst firearms handlers they have to train. What is the response then? Don’t pull the damn trigger until you want to destroy something.

As a firearms instructor you are probably aware of incidents of NDs with Glocks that we’re never released to the public because it would embarrass the department. Those ND were all of a nature that could be attributed to handling errors not to any failure of the mechanism of the firearm. If you have documentation of a failure attributed to the Glock and no mishandling by the person holding it....please tell us Glock owners so we can have the firearm repaired.

Safe handling of firearms can only be accomplished by the person. The Glock is a safe firearm with a design that fits the job. Again, I request any incidents where the ND was a result of the failure of any part of the Glock.

With each Glock that goes bang due to a holster, article of clothing, bit of debris that depresses the trigger while releasing the "safety" makes me less open minded and does, in fact, reflect the real truth of Glock's shortcomings in regard to NDs that are unique to that design.

I've made no claim that Glocks are inherently dangerous. It would do you well to read what I actually wrote about Glocks. I'm not attacking the Glock, I've said previously that a Glock is an excellent gunfighter's gun. It's not a gun for newbies or those that don't understand the shortcomings of a striker fired pistol that incorporates only a trigger safety. I understand very well the function of the Glock and pistols like it. I also understand very well that frequently, an object which inadvertently engages the trigger also releases the safety.

Feel free to piss on PSP and feel free to assign my assertions to some type of loyalty to PSP. It's a poor way to refute what I have stated and is likely why you haven't done so. You can't. What I have stated is correct and obvious statements like "don't pull the trigger" do not address the fact that sometimes something actuates the trigger and, by design, releases the safety at the same instant. Without the types of redundancies I have described that will prevent an ND, an ND happens where it would have not otherwise.

We're obviously at an impasse because Glock fan-boys have a very difficult time with any criticism of "Glock Perfection" and have embraced the company motto as if God himself thundered it from on high. I, on the other hand, am not a fanboy of any firearms design. I recognize both the strengths and weakness in a design and adjust accordingly. To not be able to recognize shortcomings of a design smacks of that close-mindedness you referred to.

[unclejumbo]

If I missed it I’m sorry. What do you think about the issue of the OP? Would you recommend disassembling a persons Glock after temporarily taking it from them on a traffic stop? And then would you return it in its disassembled state?

No and no.

[WCMG]

With each Glock that goes bang due to a holster, article of clothing, bit of debris that depresses the trigger while releasing the "safety" makes me less open minded and does, in fact, reflect the real truth of Glock's shortcomings in regard to NDs that are unique to that design.

I've made no claim that Glocks are inherently dangerous. It would do you well to read what I actually wrote about Glocks. I'm not attacking the Glock, I've said previously that a Glock is an excellent gunfighter's gun. It's not a gun for newbies or those that don't understand the shortcomings of a striker fired pistol that incorporates only a trigger safety. I understand very well the function of the Glock and pistols like it. I also understand very well that frequently, an object which inadvertently engages the trigger also releases the safety.

Feel free to piss on PSP and feel free to assign my assertions to some type of loyalty to PSP. It's a poor way to refute what I have stated and is likely why you haven't done so. You can't. What I have stated is correct and obvious statements like "don't pull the trigger" do not address the fact that sometimes something actuates the trigger and, by design, releases the safety at the same instant. Without the types of redundancies I have described that will prevent an ND, an ND happens where it would have not otherwise.

We're obviously at an impasse because Glock fan-boys have a very difficult time with any criticism of "Glock Perfection" and have embraced the company motto as if God himself thundered it from on high. I, on the other hand, am not a fanboy of any firearms design. I recognize both the strengths and weakness in a design and adjust accordingly. To not be able to recognize shortcomings of a design smacks of that close-mindedness you referred to.

Hard to argue with that statement. I'm a Glock fanboy and recently updated to the Glock 17 Gen5. Glock's aren't for everyone because the lack of a manual safety, but to me, that's the very best part of a Glock. With a chambered round with gun in battery, it will go bang when I pull the trigger without exception. I can give countless examples of people trying to qualify with their handgun and that stunned look on their face when they pull the trigger and nothing happens because the safety was on, happens every year multiple times at qualification. Is it easier to have a ND on a Glock, absolutely, but it's also easier to get that first round off before the bad guy plugs you instead of fingerfucking your safety off. Glocks aren't for everyone, but there are lots of great firearms nowadays. Pick your preference, train train tain, and we can all come home to our families each night.

[fallenleader]

guns have safeties?
mine just has a heavy trigger. nothing more, nothing less.

a chambered round won't always fire, cycle your ammo out on a regular basis.I've had "sealed" rounds that were exposed to elements like humidity for a year fail.

[Williamsmith]

With each Glock that goes bang due to a holster, article of clothing, bit of debris that depresses the trigger while releasing the "safety" makes me less open minded and does, in fact, reflect the real truth of Glock's shortcomings in regard to NDs that are unique to that design.

I've made no claim that Glocks are inherently dangerous. It would do you well to read what I actually wrote about Glocks. I'm not attacking the Glock, I've said previously that a Glock is an excellent gunfighter's gun. It's not a gun for newbies or those that don't understand the shortcomings of a striker fired pistol that incorporates only a trigger safety. I understand very well the function of the Glock and pistols like it. I also understand very well that frequently, an object which inadvertently engages the trigger also releases the safety.

Feel free to piss on PSP and feel free to assign my assertions to some type of loyalty to PSP. It's a poor way to refute what I have stated and is likely why you haven't done so. You can't. What I have stated is correct and obvious statements like "don't pull the trigger" do not address the fact that sometimes something actuates the trigger and, by design, releases the safety at the same instant. Without the types of redundancies I have described that will prevent an ND, an ND happens where it would have not otherwise.

We're obviously at an impasse because Glock fan-boys have a very difficult time with any criticism of "Glock Perfection" and have embraced the company motto as if God himself thundered it from on high. I, on the other hand, am not a fanboy of any firearms design. I recognize both the strengths and weakness in a design and adjust accordingly. To not be able to recognize shortcomings of a design smacks of that close-mindedness you referred to.

The Glock design does not have “shortcomings” based on its mission and purpose. But the Glock design will expose lack of training, due diligence and care. True, you could carry a brick in your holster and never have a ND. But when you are in a situation that demands an immediate response, there is no better design than the Glock. If you are complacent and wear clothing that dangles around your access to your holster or while disassembling fail to physically check the chamber and visually check it and then slide the rack and check it before pulling the trigger and failing that when pulling the trigger fail to point it in a safe direction......then the gun will go bang and possibly hurt or kill someone. That’s not a design flaw. That is a person flaw.

I mention PSP because the department itself has expressed its lack of confidence in Glock. The fact is that large departments like PSP are breeding grounds for criticisms of Glock because with so many officers carrying them, the lack of safe handling procedures exposes their attitude toward safety. As a firearms instructor, how many hours is a Trooper required to be doing live fire on the range in a year....handling their Glock in a mission ready state? How many times did you stop an officer and require him/her to demonstrate safe disassembly? How many non uniform department members are required to register their non department issued holster carry system for inspection to make sure that isn’t a safety hazard based on the design of the Glock trigger system?

There are only two ways to ND with a Glock. During disassembly.....which each and every time is handling negligence. And when “something actuates the trigger”. With almost every ND I am aware of this happens when care is not taken while replacing the Glock in its carry holster. What is the hurry in getting the Glock back in its holster? And how can one have an ND when taking it out without sticking your finger where it doesn’t belong until target acquisition?

Like you said, the design is unforgiving of new and persons who don’t “respect” the striker fire design (my amendment) And unfortunately, large departments have more than a few officers who aren’t diligent in safety procedures. The Glock will expose that weakness. How many NDs with a Glock have you excused by blaming it on the design rather than failure to follow basic safety?

And so this is why the department has had a storied history with changing department issued firearms. Now they carry the Sig if I am correct and I am aware that NDs are still occurring. Is their a design flaw in Sig? I’m not experienced with the brand. But I do know that NDs started even before the firearm completely replaced the Glock in the field. And I am aware of PSP having NDs with the department issued AR platform. Is there a design flaw with that rifle?

NDs are not design flaw related. To make excuses for these incidents by talking about design flaws in order to assuage the embarrassment of the handler is enabling unsafe handling practices.

This debate is directly on point with the OPs description of the incident. And I am glad to see you do not recommend the actions alledged at this traffic stop. But I am dismayed that the OP hasn’t gotten a diligent response from PSP. Does PSP take safety serious or not? If you are representative of firearms instructors statewide then you would condemn this handling of a Glock in a public trafficway knowing the inherent “design flaw” of the gun itself which you claim increases the risk of NDs. My view is, of all guns to be fiddling around with by a randomly chosen PSP officer.....I would not want it to be a Glock. Which is a sad commentary because Glock was the issued sidearm for many many years and served PSP well.

[Jhaydeno]

Uncle Jumbo is correct, from an engineering standpoint, including the safety in the same plane or action that makes it go bang isn't the best idea, unless of course one is looking for speed. When a safety is designed to be a separate action, or in a separate location, it could certainly be considered a safer design. A 1911 has two safeties: is it twice as safe, or just half as fast?

As is designing an aircraft, automobile, or a handgun, there's always a balance between weight, materials, speed, strength, and function. Glocks just happen to be towards one end of the spectrum that many of us don't think is the optimum mix (read best idea).

[unclejumbo]

The Glock design does not have “shortcomings” based on its mission and purpose. But the Glock design will expose lack of training, due diligence and care. True, you could carry a brick in your holster and never have a ND. But when you are in a situation that demands an immediate response, there is no better design than the Glock. If you are complacent and wear clothing that dangles around your access to your holster or while disassembling fail to physically check the chamber and visually check it and then slide the rack and check it before pulling the trigger and failing that when pulling the trigger fail to point it in a safe direction......then the gun will go bang and possibly hurt or kill someone. That’s not a design flaw. That is a person flaw.

I mention PSP because the department itself has expressed its lack of confidence in Glock. The fact is that large departments like PSP are breeding grounds for criticisms of Glock because with so many officers carrying them, the lack of safe handling procedures exposes their attitude toward safety. As a firearms instructor, how many hours is a Trooper required to be doing live fire on the range in a year....handling their Glock in a mission ready state? How many times did you stop an officer and require him/her to demonstrate safe disassembly? How many non uniform department members are required to register their non department issued holster carry system for inspection to make sure that isn’t a safety hazard based on the design of the Glock trigger system?

There are only two ways to ND with a Glock. During disassembly.....which each and every time is handling negligence. And when “something actuates the trigger”. With almost every ND I am aware of this happens when care is not taken while replacing the Glock in its carry holster. What is the hurry in getting the Glock back in its holster? And how can one have an ND when taking it out without sticking your finger where it doesn’t belong until target acquisition?

Like you said, the design is unforgiving of new and persons who don’t “respect” the striker fire design (my amendment) And unfortunately, large departments have more than a few officers who aren’t diligent in safety procedures. The Glock will expose that weakness. How many NDs with a Glock have you excused by blaming it on the design rather than failure to follow basic safety?

And so this is why the department has had a storied history with changing department issued firearms. Now they carry the Sig if I am correct and I am aware that NDs are still occurring. Is their a design flaw in Sig? I’m not experienced with the brand. But I do know that NDs started even before the firearm completely replaced the Glock in the field. And I am aware of PSP having NDs with the department issued AR platform. Is there a design flaw with that rifle?

NDs are not design flaw related. To make excuses for these incidents by talking about design flaws in order to assuage the embarrassment of the handler is enabling unsafe handling practices.

This debate is directly on point with the OPs description of the incident. And I am glad to see you do not recommend the actions alledged at this traffic stop. But I am dismayed that the OP hasn’t gotten a diligent response from PSP. Does PSP take safety serious or not? If you are representative of firearms instructors statewide then you would condemn this handling of a Glock in a public trafficway knowing the inherent “design flaw” of the gun itself which you claim increases the risk of NDs. My view is, of all guns to be fiddling around with by a randomly chosen PSP officer.....I would not want it to be a Glock. Which is a sad commentary because Glock was the issued sidearm for many many years and served PSP well.

You drank deeply at the Glock fountain. At no time have I mentioned the disassembly procedure of the Glock as a shortcoming. I have stated why I find the design less safe than other designs in regard to holstering. LEOs do train to reholster and secure quickly without looking at the holster. It an important step in going hands-on with someone.

You seem to think many accommodations should be made for the greatness that is Glock. Glocks are popular for two reasons with police departments. First and foremost, they are cheap. Second is that they're generally reliable (at least until PSPs problems with the gen 4) and rugged enough for police work. They lose a lot of that cheap factor when more training, revised training, acceptable off duty holster design testing, lost work days and medical bills due to Glock leg (yes, so prevalent it has a name) and other design specific expenses are factored in.

The general police officer is not and never will be trained to "operator" levels. It's too expensive, it's too exclusive and it's unnecessary in every cost/benefit analysis. It's a good reason for police departments to quit buying Glocks. Glocks are not good "general issue" pistols due to the shortcomings I've listed. Better to tailor the firearm to the average officer than demand the average officer become SWAT proficient.

[Williamsmith]

You drank deeply at the Glock fountain. At no time have I mentioned the disassembly procedure of the Glock as a shortcoming. I have stated why I find the design less safe than other designs in regard to holstering. LEOs do train to reholster and secure quickly without looking at the holster. It an important step in going hands-on with someone.

You seem to think many accommodations should be made for the greatness that is Glock. Glocks are popular for two reasons with police departments. First and foremost, they are cheap. Second is that they're generally reliable (at least until PSPs problems with the gen 4) and rugged enough for police work. They lose a lot of that cheap factor when more training, revised training, acceptable off duty holster design testing, lost work days and medical bills due to Glock leg (yes, so prevalent it has a name) and other design specific expenses are factored in.

The general police officer is not and never will be trained to "operator" levels. It's too expensive, it's too exclusive and it's unnecessary in every cost/benefit analysis. It's a good reason for police departments to quit buying Glocks. Glocks are not good "general issue" pistols due to the shortcomings I've listed. Better to tailor the firearm to the average officer than demand the average officer become SWAT proficient.

Alright, so the main downfall is that although Glocks are very affordable for a large department in initial outlay, the baggage they bring with them in the form of training expenses, holster research and development, NDs and their resultant injuries as a factor of cost by lost workdays and duty related medical bills and other design expenses......makes them unacceptable as a general issue pistol. Got it.

Why did PSP go to Glocks in the first place? They replaced the Beretta 92D after only a few years in service. In double action only with no safety and no decocking lever it simply had a slide release. We’re there ND issues with that gun? Was it because PSP believed they were going to be getting a more reliable general issue weapon? Or was it simply because they had money in the budget that they had to spend? Or both. And after many years with the Glock in .45GAP ....why did they decide to replace a perfectly good firearm again.....with another Glock? One that could take 45ACP. Cost/benefit analysis?

So I am to believe that somehow PSP fielded Glocks in 45GAP for years and never realized what an undesirable weapon it was so much so that they replaced it with another Glock model. The answer is PSP never had a problem with Glock firearms until they had a problem with Glocks response to their gen4 “problems”. So they did what PSP does. The heck with cost/analysis....rearm the entire force with an entirely new firearm.

I will agree with you on one thing. If you are going to field a sidearm and not put enough emphasis on training and retraining for basic safe handling of the firearm.....then you should buy the most dummy proof gun made.