British Troops retire the Browning Pistol and move to using the Glock

[watercooled]

Wrong quote?

Assuming you quoted the wrong part of the same post, what's 'Hollywood' about what I said? I've re-read it a few times and can't think of anything sensible?

As for trigger safety, Glocks use what they call 'safe action', it's heavier than a cocked single action, but lighter than double action and is the same for every shot. But the weight of the trigger alone should prevent ND unless someone thinks it's a good idea to pull the pistol out from a tight holster by its trigger. And as I said, no-one trained correctly will draw a pistol touching the trigger, and if someone is close enough for you to need to pull a back-up, fiddling with a manual safety could potentially cost lives, which is why a lot of people carry with trigger safety on other guns disabled.

[Biscuit]

It is going to have the default trigger safety mechanism though. I can see pistol NDs and related injuries going up.

Really? I thought the glock safety was proven to be just as, if not more effective than traditional safety mechanisms?

[watercooled]

It's carried, IIRC, by over half of US police, and far less prone to ND than a cocked/unsafe SA pistol, how I hear they're often carried. I don't know what would make highly trained armed forces more prone to ND than US civilian police?

[Biscuit]

As I understand it, 'safe action' has 3 mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge so, unless in the very unlikely even given Glocks record, the weapon is faulty, they will only fire if the trigger is depressed. Even someone who hasn't been trained would struggle to accidentally injure them self.

Unless there is something I'm missing?

[watercooled]

That's exactly it.

There you can see the safety inside the trigger, when you depress the trigger deliberately, you also disengage the safety mechanisms one after the other, while pulling the trigger i.e. the gun isn't immediately 'unsafe' once the safety is flush with the trigger, this just removes the trigger lock.

There's more to the replacement than just availability/cost, as the HP is hardly a rare/expensive weapon system. I've heard of reliability problems directly from people serving and using it, which is partly why the P226 was issued as an UOR before the full replacement procedure could be carried out. The MoD don't just hand out cheques because people are bored of existing kit. The P226 has no manual safety either.

[peterb]

That carbine version is UGLY I'd be embarrassed to use that...

You don't carry a weapon for its looks

[DDY]

As I understand it, 'safe action' has 3 mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge so, unless in the very unlikely even given Glocks record, the weapon is faulty, they will only fire if the trigger is depressed. Even someone who hasn't been trained would struggle to accidentally injure them self.

Unless there is something I'm missing?

Provided the trigger isn't pulled there isn't a lot which doesn't include mechanical faliure that can accidentally fire the Glock, or any other modern gun for that matter.

[watercooled]

Some exposed hammer guns have a chance of firing if dropped on their hammer, if a round is chambered and not 'decocked' properly, which would normally block the firing pin.

[DDY]

Some exposed hammer guns have a chance of firing if dropped on their hammer, if a round is chambered and not 'decocked' properly, which would normally block the firing pin.

I guess, a very small minority of 'modern guns' which I'm not aware of, since modern guns normally feature firing pin and hammer safeties.

[Biscuit]

That carbine version is UGLY I'd be embarrassed to use that...

To be fair, the LA85 isnt the best looking rifle in the first place, the FAMAS and Steyr Aug look a lot better
SA80/LA85

FAMAS

Steyr Aug


The SA8 carbine is a bit of an ugly ducking though, the closeness between the front grip and the flash suppressor seems odd to me aswell

But what do i know?

You don't carry a weapon for its looks

No obviously not! At the end of the day, it doesnt matter what weapon a soldier has if his training is sufficient, the soldier holding the weapon, his squad, his team and the situation they're in are what makes a difference as to how effective the weapon really is. I very much doubt any soldier would get embarrassed about the barrel size of his gun

[Biscuit]

I guess, a very small minority of 'modern guns' which I'm not aware of, since modern guns normally feature firing pin and hammer safeties.

They do, but usually require some form of training to understand correct usage procedures to achieve true safety. The glock it seems, requires very little past keeping your finger off the trigger when de-hostering.

I would love to read up on some examples of pistols the prove the contrary though if you have any?

[watercooled]

Yeah, as I said it's usually the case that the firing ping is blocked/locked, but if the hammer is manually lowered, the safety may not be present (as the trigger will have been pressed) and the hammer will be resting against the firing pin, in turn resting against the primer - a sharp strike against the hammer may fire the gun.

Anyone correctly trained in using the gun shouldn't have this problem though, as the decocking lever should leave the firing pin safety engaged.

[Biscuit]

Yeah, as I said it's usually the case that the firing ping is blocked/locked, but if the hammer is manually lowered, the safety may not be present (as the trigger will have been pressed) and the hammer will be resting against the firing pin, in turn resting against the primer - a sharp strike against the hammer may fire the gun.

Anyone correctly trained in using the gun shouldn't have this problem though, as the decocking lever should leave the firing pin safety engaged.

Training can always only go so far though, and mistakes can still be made. Whilst im not saying the glock eliminates the need for proper training, it does eliminate more of the possible human mistakes that could be made.

I don't have first hand experience, but from talking to people, watching documentaries and of course, common sense, its clear that occupation of hostile territory and war is a stressful and difficult environment. When put in the position where your service rifle is inappropriate to use this seems to be an elevated experience of pressure, even for a hardened veteran i can imagine there are times when your training might not completely kick in, so for the first tour PVTs, anything that can save them seconds, and help avoid accidental mistakes is a good thing.

[DDY]

They do, but usually require some form of training to understand correct usage procedures to achieve true safety. The glock it seems, requires very little past keeping your finger off the trigger when de-hostering.

Do you mean re-holstering? Because if anything that's where Glocks (and similar guns) are usually questioned on thier safety, with other pistols the shooter may;

- Re-engage safety
- De-cock gun
-- On double action/single action guns this will increase the trigger pull which can make the gun safer *
-- On single action only guns it totally prevents the gun from firing *

The above steps are not possible with the Glock, but imagine it this way, the Glock will be in the same firing state as the other guns, e.g. pull the trigger and bang, if the above steps were not carried out.

*With certain guns without a decocker there is a caveat, refer to WCed post on manual decocking.

Then, de-holstering. I can think of some other scenarios where additonal actions may be nessecary;

- No round chambered, shooter must rack slide (applies to Glock)
- Single action only, shooter must pull back hammer
- Manual safety on, shooter must disengage safety

The potential complexity of the above could lose the shooter valuable seconds as already mentioned by WCed, this is the only scenario I can think of which could increase danger to the shooter.

Other than that a gun should never be assumed to be truly safe, with one exception, one must know definitively when it is safe to be able to service a firearm.

[watercooled]

Training can always only go so far though, and mistakes can still be made. Whilst im not saying the glock eliminates the need for proper training, it does eliminate more of the possible human mistakes that could be made.

Agreed.

Snip...

The trigger pull on a Glock is somewhere between SA and DA as the hammer is held half-cocked, so it shouldn't carry the risk of a very light/short SA trigger, although of course trigger weight varies between guns. The trigger pull length/weight is also consistent between shots because of this, like DAO but lighter than is common with DAO.

Single action only weapons are sometimes 'made ready', carried cocked but with safety engaged to avoid having to cock the hammer prior to firing. OTOH, manual safety may be redundant if the weapon is decocked as pressing the trigger won't do anything. Of course, the safety of either of these depend on if automatic firing pin safety is present on the weapon.

[Jake_UK]

Wrong quote?

Assuming you quoted the wrong part of the same post, what's 'Hollywood' about what I said? I've re-read it a few times and can't think of anything sensible?

That this is about being Quickdraw McGraw.