Well that and they’re inexpensive, reliable, and a really good all around gun.
I’m not sure what the point of the article is, other than “black gun scary”
I’m not into guns at all and I sat here thinking “could’ve just replaced Glock with Honda Civic and much of this would still make sense.”
Holy cow! I came here to talk about how Glocks are like Honda Civics too!
I like you.
No, silly. Civics can’t fire bullets. Common misunderstanding, happens all the time. Once, I tried to do target practice at the range, but I was actually high in the bathroom at a Costco with a cucumber; same thing really.
Spoiler
(yes this is /s)
Most American comment ever? Lol
Not even in the top one thousand. We say some really stupid shit about guns.
“This hamburger is too small!” is the most American comment ever.
Don’t bring the gun’s race into this.
Have you read the article? The difference is how Glocks can easily adapted to fire full auto with an accessory.
Can others be adapted to full auto? Probably. But the adapters aren’t as easilyinstalled and commonly available.
By being a super popular gun for the reasons you mention and by being a relatively simple gun certainly helped it become the host of choice for such a modification.
One model of Glock being full auto from the factory probably set the blueprint for the illegal mod.
Have you ever heard of a Shoestring Machine gun? A little creativity goes a long ways and a Glock is nothing special aside from being an excellent self defense weapon.
AR 15 drop in auto sear using an index card as in you fold a piece of paper a certain way and put it in your rifle it will cause it to shoot full auto. You don’t really want full auto anyway, just wasting ammo really.
There’s a big difference between want and need. Full auto is very fun, but impractical
But the adapters aren’t as easilyinstalled and commonly available.
Guess what the most popular and easily available mods are for cars? The ones for the most popular cheap and reliable cars!
I did. It’s a bit clickbaity.
Yes Glock is a super popular gun.
Yes it’s possible to make them full auto.
Then the throw in some weaseling : turning up increasingly, police think it was used this one time, this anti-gun commission says. Spraying bullets.
Glock has a reputation for quality, they’re cheap and reliable, not having a safety adds nuance of danger for those idolizing them.
I’m sure there are some people using full auto Glocks, but they’re extremely rare. It’s not this new impending threat. They could have easily done the article detailing the full auto device or given real numbers of use. They’re in it for the clicks.
no safety? i assumed all guns legally had to include a safety lock.
Glocks have three separate safety devices, but they do not have a toggleable safety switch on the outside of the gun, commonly referred to as a “thumb safety”.
You will not be able to make a Glock fire unless you put your finger in the trigger and pull it. They are 100% drop-safe, meaning even if you have the gun loaded and it falls off a table, etc., it will not fire a round (unlike guns in the movies).
This makes Glocks a very appealing self-defense handgun. In a real self-defense shooting scenario, it is unlikely that you will have the time or dexterity to disengage the thumb safety before firing. Assuming you remember to do it at all.
There’s something called the rule of threes in self defense shootings: most encounters happen at 3 yards, last 3 seconds, and 3 rounds are fired. If someone is sprinting at you from 9 feet away, the extra split second of fumbling around with the gun to turn the safety off could make a big difference. Concealed carry instructors will commonly tell students to submerge their hands in a bowl of ice water for a full minute, then attempt to handle their (unloaded) gun and operate the action and thumb safety. It’s nearly impossible. That’s the amount of dexterity you will have in an actual life threatening situation due to the sudden rush of adrenaline.
When carrying a handgun for self defense, we use other factors to mitigate a negligent discharge. For example, your holster must completely cover the trigger when the gun is seated so it cannot be fired when holstered.
I carry a Glock daily for self defense and have never had an issue with the lack of a thumb safety, because I follow the rules of gun safety very strictly.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
I’ll just add most (all?) revolvers have no manual safety other than a heavier and long double action pull on the trigger.
Just a reminder that single action revolvers still exist and don’t have the heavier pull. They also don’t have manual safeties, as far as I’m aware.
Their safeties are the fact that you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the weapon. Basically impossible to negligently discharge, barring a few that don’t have a strike plate between the firing pin and hammer, meaning a strong blow to the hammer can shoot off a chambered round.
Double action revolvers can also typically be operated as a single action, manually cocking the hammer. This also removes the other Xtra weight from the trigger, which was just the force added by having to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder.
And the same goes for DA/SA or SA-only automatics. Most tend to have manual safeties, some have de-cockers only or can be transformed to that configuration.
The safety is integrated into the trigger, so if you keep your finger off the trigger then the gun is supposedly in safety mode.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
Just the trigger. A safety in the “handle” would be a grip safety, which some guns have but not Glocks (unless it is some obscure small run model, but certainly none of the common ones). It looks like an extra panel on the back of the grip which is squeezed into the grip when held.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
The recent Sig P 320 chosen by the US Army has variants with no manual safety and doesn’t have the trigger safety.
It still has internal safeties but there have been issues with accidental discharges with the earlier productions.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
thanks for the good responses. i wonder if every gun had fingerprint sensor locks, would that help fix things? or just take away our rights?
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
They’ve tried that. Take a coin, call a side, and flip it. Did you get it right? Gun shoots. Did you get it wrong? The other guy shoots and you die. That’s how accurate the biometric safety is.
Also, on a device that is under extreme vibration and shock loads when used, this equipment will have issues and fail at the worst time. Guns are effective because they are drop dead simple in design.
It’s a thing, and has been since the late 90’s (I think). Reliability is the main issue. The first one I had heard of had mechanical reliability problems If I remember correctly.
Haven’t looked at Biofires products lately, but they weren’t really weatherproof last I heard and weren’t recommended for duty use as a result. And then there is the eye watering sticker price. A Taurus PT92 is less than half the price of the Biofire, and has a track record for good reliability.
I seem to remember a state, New Jersey, I think, had a law on the books saying that if multiple manufacturers came out with biometricly locked firearms that biometric locks would then become mandatory. As for if that would help things, probably not.
Who cares “full auto” neither increases the lethality or capacity for criminal activity of a firearm.
There’s definitely a lot of fear mongering and ignorance about firearms out there but full auto most definitely increases lethality both in terms of a single target and in terms of hitting unintended bystanders.
That’s a skill issue. One bullet one dead is the goal. Real life isn’t John wick. Your just as dead if done properly.
You say that life isn’t a movie. Then you say that people who need full auto have a “skill issue”? Christ dude, life isn’t CSGO either. You’re right that many shooters probably aren’t that skilled, but the takeaway here is that makes full auto more lethal in their hands, not that they need to git gud.
Nah you ain’t understanding, maybe if Americans had to be trained before they are given a firearm. You know like before they get to drive a car or fly a plane. But your wrong, lethal is binary you either are dead or not dead. You are never more dead than dead. Try to argue with logic and not your heart homie. If a gun has 30 bullets the maximum amount of lethality is 30. Full auto or not. It doesn’t get more dangerous because you are a bad shot. There is not multi round bonus lol.
The point of full auto is to improve hit probability, not increase lethality. There absolutely is a multiround bonus, and 3rnd burst has been used by every major military for this exact reason.
Troll harder?
If you want to cause maximum carnage yes have a full auto Glock to spray into a crowd will be very effective towards your goal. You keep talking like these are one on one scenarios. Yeah you’re right full auto is useless one on one. But think about the other scenarios.
Bro if your body is mangled are you any less or more dead?
Usually less
How can you be less dead?
your body is mangled
It’s right there in the question you thought was a brilliant hypothetical.
It is surprisingly difficult to make any handgun fire full auto controllably.
Not the Glock, the irony is that their safety mechanisms provide a brilliant exploit for full auto conversion. No other striker fired handgun is anywhere near as easy. The 18C was in no way a guide for conversion because the mechanisms of operation are entirely different and far more complex, the conversions are brilliant in their simplicity.
The second easiest one is the 1911, but you need to modify the frame and slide and make some fairly precise parts that have to be hand fitted to each gun. You can make a 1911 uncontrolled full auto, as some find out by accident when they modify the gun for legal reasons.
It’s a bit chicken and the egg. It’s a super popular handgun so therefore the accessories get made for it.
If another gun was as popular, you’d likely see the people who made this accessory make one for that gun instead.
On one hand you’re correct if Glocks magically disappeared, but you can’t discount the built-in trigger safety on the Glock making it easier.
Glocks are, and were already, very popular guns. This means that accessories manufacturers will target their devices at these guns, so they target as large of a market as possible. Thus, more manufacturers are wanting to produce automatic adapting devices for Glocks than other guns.
Bit of a chicken and egg situation, tbh.
Yes. You can make pretty much any semiautomatic pistol (or reciprocating rifle) full auto with a fucking shoestring. There are other mods for other guns that are not even remotely complicated. I won’t get into any specifics for the sake of public safety but Glocks are not very unique, they’re super common which is why parts and mods are so abundant.
semiautomatic pistol full auto with a fucking shoestring.
The shoestring machinegun that got the ATF letter was a Mini-14 (which importantly had an exposed reciprocating charging handle) if I recall correctly, and it was still very janky. I’m trying to figure out the engineering of the same concept with a Glock with just a string and I am having some trouble.
and I am having some trouble.
Good, don’t do it because it’s a felony.
And the built in trigger safety makes it easier.
Popular item has many accessories.
Whodathunk.
The gun is popular with criminals for the same reason it’s popular overall. Oh noes.
As usual, the gun isn’t the problem. Gun laws allowing access to it by criminals are.
Glocks are among the most popular handguns, period. That’s because they work, and they work consistently, even with poor maintenance and cheap ammunition.
If you try running your expensive Staccato 2011 without cleaning it every few hundred rounds, you’re going to be guaranteed to have jams. A Glock? You can get about 3000 rounds at a range between cleaning.
My range had a rental CZ75 they never cleaned. Probably had 15k rounds or more through it, the owner figured. He’d check it periodically to make sure it was safe, but he was curious to see how long it took to crater it. It was still the most accurate 9mm in the rental fleet. I sold my M&P to buy a Shadow just because that gun blew it out of the water for multishot accuracy.
IIRC there’s one part on the Shadow II that’s known to fail at regular intervals, I think the extractor? It’s something that’s well known to competitive shooters, common enough that they keep spares on hand the same way that most competitors keep spare optics batteries on hand. I don’t know that I’d try running a Shadow or Shadow II for thousands of rounds without cleaning, just because it’s got closer tolerances than a CZ-75B. But that’s just me.
Oh, and if you like CZ, check out KMR Arms. KMR does some of CZ’s manufacturing, and also does their own line. Sadly, they aren’t yet generally available in the US due to the general difficulties in importing pistols, but I’ve heard they’re trying to work out distribution. These should be viewed solely as competition guns though rather than tactical or duty firearms; you should probably not be using any of them as a carry gun.
EDIT: A range can probably get away with a little less cleaning, because they limit the ammunition that people can use; they can only sell very clean burning ammunition that won’t leave a ton of powder and copper fouling. Most people that practice on their own use whatever is cheap, which may even be shitty Russian surplus Wolf ammo with lacquered steel cases, and corrosive Berdan primers.
rare nexusmods L
Those glocks ain’t stock
I don’t own one. Can someone objectively confirm a few things about Glocks? Is the following true?:
-
They don’t really have a “safety”. They have several mechanisms that prevent accidental fire when a finger isn’t on the trigger, but if you have a round in the chamber and pull the trigger, it’s going to fire (which sounds obvious, but I mean it doesn’t have a safety switch like a bb gun usually does)
-
You have to pull back the slide to chamber a round and fire. And once it’s chambered, the trigger just needs a light squeeze to fire (as opposed to a full motion squeeze - in other words, the trigger is partially pulled back once racked and easier to fire)
If the above is true, these two things in combination seem like an irrisponsible design to me. You are asking for accidental fires like the one that happens recently where a guy pointed a gun at some kids in his driveway and claims “the gun went off”. You should either have a real safety, or it should be harder to squeeze the trigger accidentally.
No its not true. Glocks have a safety its just not your traditional safety. Its not going to go off on its own, cam be dropped on the ground and its not going magically go off. Modern glocks arent double action, so it wont take 15 pounds of pressure to fire the bullet, but more like 4-6 pounds. Thats still quite a bit and way more than what you need to fire a bb gun, paint ball round, laser tag gun.
The four basic rules of gun safety are:
Treat every gun as if it’s loaded: Always assume a gun is loaded, even if you think it’s not.
Point the gun in a safe direction: A safe direction is one where the bullet will not cause injury or damage if it accidentally discharges.
Keep your finger off the trigger: Keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until you’re ready to shoot.
Know your target: Be certain of your target and what’s in front of and behind it.
The irresponsibleness in your situation is the fact a gun was pointed at kids at all. You simply dont take your gun out to have a cowboy monologue of getting off my property and you certainly dont have you finger over the trigger unless you intend to fire. There is no irresponsible design here, only irresponsible owners.
- They do have a safety. It’s a trigger safety, not a thumb safety. This means that you have to have your finger in the trigger and pull it for the gun to go off. If the trigger snags on clothes or the gun is dropped or whatever, the gun will not go off.
- The glock is a striker-fired gun. That means the trigger pull to fire will always be the same. There is no double VS single action, which is probably what you’re thinking about when you say “light squeeze to fire” as a double action gun like a Beretta 92FS will have a noticeably shorter and much easier pull if it’s cocked VS uncocked. There is no “partially pulled back” with a glock. You always pull the trigger the same amount with the same force to fire. You cannot “decock” a glock.
Now how much force does it require? That is up to the trigger spring. Some jurisdictions like NY force glocks to have a really heavy trigger pull but as far as I am aware there is no data supporting that it makes them any safer. I will say if I had to criticize the glock, it is that you need to pull the trigger to disassemble the weapon. Of course you should only be trying to disassemble it after you’ve cleared any rounds from the chamber but it is one minor flaw with the design and one reason why the glock wasn’t eligible to become the US Army’s sidearm.
The NY Glock trigger is, IIRC, for NYPD, so that cops aren’t “accidentally” shooting unarmed people. Because clearly it was an accident that they shoot unarmed people multiple times…
It’s been a while since I read the book on Glock history, but my memory is that before Glocks many police departments used double action revolvers (S&W 29s for a common example). This lead to police habitually resting their fingers on the triggers. Bad habit, but they got away with it because of the ultra heavy triggers.
When departments switched to Glocks there were a rash of negligent discharges as police kept putting their fingers on the much lighter trigger. One incident in particular where a cop shot a suspect because of this. Despite it being a training issue, many departments became wary of Glocks, so adjustments like the NYPD trigger were born as a way to placate the issue.
Well, you’re definitely correct about many PDs using revolvers before switching to Glocks. That goes back to the Miami shootout with the FBI; FBI agents were still using revolvers at the time, and they were significantly outgunned b/c one of the suspects was armed with a Ruger Mini-14 rifle. As a result, the FBI started looking for a better sidearm, and the initially settled on 10mm before adopting the .40S&W. Glock managed to bring a .40S&W pistol to market before Smith & Wesson did (!!!), and then charged below cost for PDs in order to convince them to adopt the then-new firearm.
And after finding an article about it, it looks like the NYPD did want to match the pull of their old double-action service revolvers. Which is nuts.
got a source for that?
deleted by creator
- Yes for most glocks, although there are some glock models that do feature a manual safety.
- Glocks have a half cocked striker once you rack the slide, and this gives a factory glock a trigger pull weight that is directly in between a cocked single-action trigger and an uncocked double-action trigger.
Glock’s trigger safety is more secure than no safety although it is not as secure as a thumb safety, and the half cocked striker is easier to pull than a double-action trigger but is harder to pull than a single-action trigger.
Presumably this compromise was intentional and is one of the reasons why Glocks have become popular through their balance of reliability and ease of use - nowadays most striker fired pistols follow the same design principle.
From what others are saying, the trigger pull is always the same. I’m not familiar with the intricacies of Glocks specifically, but this seems to match with my experience as well.
The other commenter is saying the same thing, just in perhaps a less clear way. I think they are saying the Glock’s trigger weight is between what you would expect of a heavy double action and a light single action. The Glock is a consistent weight every time. The design is often referred to as “safe action striker” or often informally just as “striker” fired. The design lacks a large and heavy hammer that needs to be actuated. Many designs after Glocks were introduced have copied this idea, making it a common alternative design to hammer fired.
- Glocks have a half cocked striker once you rack the slide, and this gives a factory glock a trigger pull weight that is directly in between a cocked single-action trigger and an uncocked double-action trigger.
I can see your interpretation of this passage, now that I re-read it. My interpretation of the passage was that, upon racking the slide, you’d have a trigger pull weight between the two. Glad we could clarify hahah.
My interpretation of the passage was that, upon racking the slide, you’d have a trigger pull weight between the two.
Your interpretation is simultaneously correct. If you insert a magazine on a closed Glock and pull the trigger nothing will happen. You need to rack it once to get the first round into the chamber. When you fire that racked round, you get the intermediate trigger pull- but also any other round you fire has the exact same pull.
I think the way it was explained above is bringing in other types of triggers as a comparison (DA/SA triggers), and if you don’t know anything about them, you just end up more lost trying to read it out.
Yes, since there’s no way to fully cock the striker, you always get the ~6lb half cocked trigger pull weight every time.
To me their trigger safety is a joke. It’s a bit of metal that sticks out of the trigger a couple mm than gets pulled when you pull the trigger. It does prevent accidental discharges from being dropped but if you’ve got a Glock racked and ready it doesn’t take much force on the trigger at all to fire.
That’s why I got my wife a Ruger. It has a proper safety.
Laughs in Shadow with no factory safety.
But… That is the safety. A safety is intended to prevent ADs/NDs. And that’s what it’s doing here. If you have your finger on the trigger, then yes, it’s going to do off, and maybe you shouldn’t have your finger on the trigger unless you’re pointing the gun at something you intend to shoot?
Glocks have a trigger safety, which is a small switch that has to be depressed on the face of the trigger to fire. The second paragraph is bologna.
Also a drop safety to prevent the gun from going off if you drop it.
That said it doesn’t have a safety that most people would think is meant by the word, which is a switch that prevents the trigger from being pulled (that is not built into the trigger itself)
And yes, that second paragraph is BS.
-
Glock pistols popular in US because of the proliferation of fucking cowards
Sorted that for you
Scared of their own fucking shadows, those pussies
mate
