Also as posted above I learned the tactile moves made by some who carried a gun(in Md that was a no no). Taught to me by a black Baltimore City Cop who learned on the city streets. He then moved to the Airport in Baltimore. He thought it was a little safer or so he said. It really wasn't. Just a bit more compact small city. I have had occasion to thank Dan more than once.
Why are law enforcement agencies issuing Glocks?
- Thread starter Doc Hollywood
- Start date
blues7
Member
The trigger was mandated to make the pull more akin to a revolver as that was what many or most of the LEOs back in the day were used to. (I started my career as an LEO with revolvers in NY. Later transitioned to cocked and locked .45's and then other semi-autos including Glocks.) Doing so provided a sense of familiarity with the "feel" of the trigger.
If those making the choice for the agencies felt the firearm was not a safe pistol they could have opted for any of a number of other firearms.
My last outfit decided that carrying cocked and locked was no longer a safe practice and made us stop carrying our .45's.
Later they had us turn in our issued S&W 6906s for Glock 19's and 26's. Other than one idiot that tried to put his loaded gun back in the shipping box (and ended up shooting himself, see my recent post), there were no ADs or NDs that I can recall.
Glocks are not unsafe. Folks who don't train and don't know what they are doing with a firearm are unsafe.
Last edited:
When all bad guys go back to revolvers (and pinkie promise not to cheat) maybe LEOs will reconsider 18 rounds at the ready. In reality, and perhaps unfortunately, this debate was settled many years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We know for a fact that Glocks have a lighter trigger pull than a double action revolver, so there is less margin for error.
The spec for a Glock is a 5.5# trigger pull. S&W doesn't list that spec, but I understand that revolver trigger pulls are in the 12#-10# range.
SIGs are apparently available with a DA/SA scheme, where the first trigger pull is 10#.
Last edited:
I have a large amount of experience on police ranges.....
What really gets my attention is the amount of unintentional discharges when re-holstering a Glock.
Not blaming the Glock, just the operator's negligence.
A SIG really presents a concern too if the operator forgets to use the de-cocker before re-holstering.
In the old days, I don't believe I ever saw an unintentional discharge with a revolver (talking police ranges).
What really gets my attention is the amount of unintentional discharges when re-holstering a Glock.
Not blaming the Glock, just the operator's negligence.
A SIG really presents a concern too if the operator forgets to use the de-cocker before re-holstering.
In the old days, I don't believe I ever saw an unintentional discharge with a revolver (talking police ranges).
italiansport
Member
Back when I owned and operated a video production company we did a lot of legally related work. We did depositions involving accidental pistol discharges in 3 cases(one involved a firearms instructor) and the firearms in question were all Glocks. NO other make of pistol accidental discharge was ever handled by us to the best on my knowledge.
To this day I have never used a Glock as a concealed carry firearm nor do I even own one.
Jim
To this day I have never used a Glock as a concealed carry firearm nor do I even own one.
Jim
Last edited:
blues7
Member
I've been carrying them since 1988 and carrying AIWB. Obviously our personal anecdotal experience is hardly statistically relevant.
That said, how many Glocks are out there in the hands of the public as well as state, local and federal agencies (just in the U.S.)? Take that number and then determine what percent of one percent the total number of human error or mechanical failures represent.
Folks who are unwilling to train or maintain / refresh their training with their firearms are a danger to themselves and the public at large.
I feel it is unfair to blame the firearm for human failure. If folks want to keep the manual of arms simple, they should practice and become proficient with revolvers which remain relevant despite their limited number of rounds.
Blues,
I never knew you switched to a Glock!! What do you EDC in that far,far away little mountain village you live in now? I have a G30s but mosty carry my Kimber cocked & locked,a S&W 2"60 is my secondary.Give my best to your wife.
Jim
I never knew you switched to a Glock!! What do you EDC in that far,far away little mountain village you live in now? I have a G30s but mosty carry my Kimber cocked & locked,a S&W 2"60 is my secondary.Give my best to your wife.
Jim
I bought a bunch of guns from a fellow locally herer. One I passed on was a Glock in 40 cal. He was loading for it(a little hot) and the frame had cracked down both sides(alright a LOT hot). Surprising thing was he had taken some kind of epoxy and fixed the crack and the gun still shot fine. Needless to say..I did not buy any of the reloaded ammo he wanted to sell me either. While I don't like Glocks I must admire that they work fine and was amazed that gun still worked. The one good thing I can say about Glocks is that they are pretty economical to buy. Especially for governmental agencies who usually do the low bid route. I don't want to have one pointed at me though. I once walked into a C store robbery and got to see a S&W 19 up close and personal in my face. Almost had to change my drawers. That cop was stressed to say the least. I think I would have been in more danger if he had carried a Glock.
blues7
Member
Hiya Jim,
I was carrying Glocks daily before we ever met back in the 90's.
I EDC a G26 or 19. For around the property, walking the dog or traipsing down the mountain to the mailbox the S&W 642-1 suffices.
When there's bigger varmints afoot I occasionally carry my 686+ for a change of pace.
Whitwabit
US Veteran
More likely they will spend several times that amount in bad shooting settlements .. so the sending of the officers for more training could be cost effective !!
blues7
Member
Don't do this:
When you should be doing this:
When you should be doing this:
I assume most of us are on this forum due to our admiration of revolvers--but please be serious. Sending a patrolman out on a modern day beat with a six-shooter is nothing short of criminal. Modern, striker-fired, higher capacity handguns are a must for those who "protect and serve".
NDs are a direct result of training (or lack thereof). LEOs must embrace departmental training AND maintain a high level of personal (unpaid) training to stay competent and safe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NDs are a direct result of training (or lack thereof). LEOs must embrace departmental training AND maintain a high level of personal (unpaid) training to stay competent and safe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
cmort666
Member
I don't have the slightest problem with Glocks, insofar as the design or manual of arms go.
Of course I have respect for them and ANY loaded firearm, and take the time to learn how to safely handle them.
Anybody who carries a loaded firearm, yet refuses to learn how to safely handle it, even if he has to do so on his own time, and at his own expense, is criminally negligent and deserves whatever legal misfortunes befall him due to that laziness.
Likewise, any governmental agency which either issues or mandates a particular firearm, and fails to adequately train and retrain its personnel should be held civilly liable for any harm done by those personnel with those firearms which can be traced to inadequate initial and reinforcement training.
Of course I have respect for them and ANY loaded firearm, and take the time to learn how to safely handle them.
Anybody who carries a loaded firearm, yet refuses to learn how to safely handle it, even if he has to do so on his own time, and at his own expense, is criminally negligent and deserves whatever legal misfortunes befall him due to that laziness.
Likewise, any governmental agency which either issues or mandates a particular firearm, and fails to adequately train and retrain its personnel should be held civilly liable for any harm done by those personnel with those firearms which can be traced to inadequate initial and reinforcement training.
OP
Doc Hollywood
US Veteran
I believe there are plenty of high quality DA pistols with hammers suitable for law enforcement. (Sig, HK, Beretta,). My home defense piece is an M9.
BTW it was everything I could do to save that officer but they will recover. I suspect that their career in law enforcement is over.
BTW it was everything I could do to save that officer but they will recover. I suspect that their career in law enforcement is over.
Jst1mr
Member
A lot depends on what is interpreted as a "safety" - on a pistol with a frame mounted safety, the firearm will not fire with the safety engaged (assuming of course that it is mechanically functional). However, much has been written about those who may not train regularly fumbling with or forgetting a safety - or whether it is safe in the up or in the down position - under duress. So an acceptable solution has become a monstrous trigger pull, likely in combination with a grip safety and/or trigger safety. One scenario is that, with gun in hand (depressing the grip safety), finger properly OFF the trigger, the holstering action allows some shirt material or something to depress the trigger, and since all conditions are met, the weapon fires. Obviously, holster design can be important. As far as forgetting to use a decocker, well you can forget to engage a safety, or forget to lower a hammer, etc, etc someone will find a way to defeat just about anything.
Sorry to read of the accident. Hope the officer recovers completely. Have been using Glocks since they bought out the 17L. G-21, 22 ... fine pistols. Never had one ever discharge except when I pulled the trigger. Today at a indoor range ... shooting 1911 and S&W revolver... both worked just perfectly. No discharges until the trigger was pulled. Amazing thing is, if you keep your trigger finger out of the trigger guard until you are read to prepare and make a shot, the gun just doesn't go off!
Are GLocks more or less safe than a 1911? It depends. Poorly handled pistols are dangerous because they are handled poorly. There are lots of folks who have shot stuff... and even themselves b/c they failed to handle a 1911 properly. The same goes with Glocks, S&W, etc. It isn't rocket science. Handling a gun requires due care and attention. Carelessness combined with a loaded gun can lead to really tragic consequences.
Is the problem a lack of training? Possibly. But, if a officer is going to carry a gun or any other equipment, he needs to take the initiative to learn how to use that piece of equipment. That applies to a car, a pair of handcuffs, pepper spray or a pistol. The officer must be responsible for his own self and not expect someone else to be responsible for him. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
Are GLocks more or less safe than a 1911? It depends. Poorly handled pistols are dangerous because they are handled poorly. There are lots of folks who have shot stuff... and even themselves b/c they failed to handle a 1911 properly. The same goes with Glocks, S&W, etc. It isn't rocket science. Handling a gun requires due care and attention. Carelessness combined with a loaded gun can lead to really tragic consequences.
Is the problem a lack of training? Possibly. But, if a officer is going to carry a gun or any other equipment, he needs to take the initiative to learn how to use that piece of equipment. That applies to a car, a pair of handcuffs, pepper spray or a pistol. The officer must be responsible for his own self and not expect someone else to be responsible for him. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
Squarebutt
Member
Beyond the serious issues cited above, I've wondered whether there are any statistics showing a higher incidence of officers being shot when an officer's Glock is grabbed by a perp as compared to when a pistol with a mechanical safety is involved and the officer(s) have a moment to react.
