#### can happen no matter what

V29189*** said:
forget the "rules" for a second - the little voice in my head that says "pointing that firearm at yourself would be Counter-productive"

its that same feeling in your head that - when arming a mouse trap, hold the trap on the safe side... even though you have to touch the cheese, I just don't feel comfortable holding a mouse trap on the side that goes "SNAP"

anyone else kinda feel the same way???

Knowing full well what the unhappy end of the firearm does, why point it at yourself for ANY other reason than to shoot yourself???
Click to expand...

Hey hey, you need to lay off on the logic it won't be tolerated here.;) Great post.

TDC
 
what makes me really laugh is this was a certified corerections officer with firearms training, maybe not "glock" training but if his dept. allows the carry of firearms he would have been sure to recieve the appropriate training as per the requirments of the States corrections dept.

so those that call it an "accidental discharge" should reword it to a negligent discharge, because frankly there is absoloutly no accident about pulling the trigger.....
 
Accident?

Trigun said:
Sometimes a drop mag safty is not a bad idea for a duty gun. We are just human.

Please read

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1159095

Trigun
Click to expand...

That thread is predicated on a load of horses**t.

Everybody knows that when LE suicide with a gun, they are usually found to have been "cleaning their gun when they had an accident".

The life insurance company cares about that subtle distinction, and that is why the investigators do too.
 
...That doesn't change the fact that having to pull the trigger in order to field strip a pistol is a stupid and totally unnecessary design. There is absolutely no reason to design a gun that way other than saving a few cents on production costs (and making guns as cheaply as possible is Glock's corporate philosophy)...
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is to 'save a few cents', more like the KISS principle of design which is what Glock is renound for. Sure they could put a Sig style decocker on there but it justs adds parts, complexity, and another point of failure.

Using one idiots actions as a justification to belittle a perfectly reasonable design is more stupid than having to pull a trigger to fieldstrip IMHO. How many thousands of Glocks are out there in circulation and how many stories do you hear like this? If it was really a design problem how is it not happening all the time?

The man in question failed on two points of safety regardless of the design of the firearm. No excuses can be made for that and he paid the ultimate price for his oversight.

That said, I am a drinker of the Glock Kool-aid, so I may be blind to design flaws in their product because I like them as firearms. What say everyone else? Design flaw as Capp maintains, or acceptable safety compromise to keep the product simple?
 
A little off topic here, but still on the same note.

How many of you prove your pistol by running a rod up the muzzle as required by the RFASC? I kind of poohoo'd this practice when taking the course, but now; after reading some of the posts here; am starting to think that maybe it has some merrit as a second check for empty chamber.

Comments?
 
gnmontey said:
A little off topic here, but still on the same note.

How many of you prove your pistol by running a rod up the muzzle as required by the RFASC? I kind of poohoo'd this practice when taking the course, but now; after reading some of the posts here; am starting to think that maybe it has some merrit as a second check for empty chamber.

Comments?
Click to expand...

Running a rod/stock down the bore is not required in the PAL course. Ensuring the bore is clear is the only reason for such action and it can be duplicated with a bore light or natural light as well. Short of dumping your firearm muzzle first in the dirt or experiencing a squib there is no reason to verify the bore. A clear chamber and clear magazine well/tube/feedpath is all that is necessary.

Conduct a visual and physical check of the chamber and mag well and be done with it. If you're still uncomfortable, sell your guns and get a new hobby.

TDC
 
"Running a rod/stock down the bore is not required in the PAL course."

How about the RPAL course? This action was required to pass the course in June 09 when I took it?

Me... I use my eyes to inspect the chamber, or my pinky finger if the light is poor.

The cleaning rod comes out when I hear/sense a squib or clean the pistol.
 
Last edited:
gnmontey said:
"Running a rod/stock down the bore is not required in the PAL course."

How about the RPAL course? This action was required to pass the course in June 09 when I took it?

Me... I use my eyes to inspect the chamber, or my pinky finger if the light is poor.

The cleaning rod comes out when I hear/sense a squib or clean the pistol.
Click to expand...

The requirement for the course is that the student verify the bore is clear. It does NOT require the student to use a stick, arrow, cleaning rod, stir stick, plumbing snake or any other object.

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom