Col. Cooper's/Gunsite's Four Rules...

[Dagga Boy]

I think the only thing that has thrown a real wrench in the rules has been the the Glock. Because you have to press the trigger to take it apart many use this as the big reason why the rules are now dated and stupid. Of course nobody wants to address the real issue that this process has been the root cause of a crap load of ND's. Essentially, you have to violate one of the rules to take the gun apart, so you have one less fail-safe. My opinion is that it is a negative design feature of the Glock that nobody wants to talk about and it is easier to just dismiss the rules than to admit that the gun design is flawed. Of course people have bought a perfect gun, so the rules must be wrong. I'm thinking the truth is the other way around.

[orionz06]

Is taking apart a Glock always a violation of the 4 rules?

[Wendell]

Jeff Cooper was a big advocate of dry-fire. If dry-fire is not necessarily a violation of the four rules, neither is the Glock's requirement to drop the firing pin to accomplish disassembly.

When you pull the trigger, have your sights (and the the muzzle) pointing at a safe backstop (not your hand).

The rules are neither dated nor stupid; the rules are just fine.

[MDS]

Of course people have bought a perfect gun, so the rules must be wrong. I'm thinking the truth is the other way around.

Glocks aren't perfect, and neither are the rules. If there were such a thing as perfection, we wouldn't need the rules. Nor the Glocks, for that matter. The rules' genius, IMO, is that they work at several levels simultaneously. Superficially, they work if you follow them to the letter. At another level, they work to get your mind right, so you handle your gun mindfully, carefully, and safely - even as you sometimes violate the rules. At yet another level, they're just imperfect enough to sir up this kind of debate and thinking about safety, but not so imperfect that they're easy to replace. These are only the levels that I've perceived so far in my short time thinking about them, I suspect as I continue to learn I'll see many more levels at which the rules work. From that perspective, the rules are more of a safety koan.

The rules are dead. Long live the rules.

[JHC]

Jeff Cooper was a big advocate of dry-fire. If dry-fire is not necessarily a violation of the four rules, neither is the Glock's requirement to drop the firing pin to accomplish disassembly.

When you pull the trigger, have your sights (and the the muzzle) pointing at a safe backstop (not your hand).

The rules are neither dated nor stupid; the rules are just fine.

+1 and no one has ever argued that the Glock is a reason that those rules are defective. Quite the opposite if anything.

[JHC]

I think the only thing that has thrown a real wrench in the rules has been the the Glock. Because you have to press the trigger to take it apart many use this as the big reason why the rules are now dated and stupid. Of course nobody wants to address the real issue that this process has been the root cause of a crap load of ND's. Essentially, you have to violate one of the rules to take the gun apart, so you have one less fail-safe. My opinion is that it is a negative design feature of the Glock that nobody wants to talk about and it is easier to just dismiss the rules than to admit that the gun design is flawed. Of course people have bought a perfect gun, so the rules must be wrong. I'm thinking the truth is the other way around.

Todd was making that point a couple weeks back too and I found it equally curious because I've seen this design aspect criticized widely for decades. Hardly a suppressed secret.

It can be a show stopper for someone or not. Magazine safeties can be show stoppers for some, or not. Pure 1911 design risk of a dropped condition 1 or 2 pistol can be a show stopper for some or not.

But the Glock trigger pull for disassembly is a design flaw.

[orionz06]

I'm not sure I would call it a flaw, especially if one can abide by the four rules and still field strip it. It may be something people dislike but I would leave the decision on a flaw to the designers, not those using outside of it's intent.

[BLR]

Todd was making that point a couple weeks back too and I found it equally curious because I've seen this design aspect criticized widely for decades. Hardly a suppressed secret.

It can be a show stopper for someone or not. Magazine safeties can be show stoppers for some, or not. Pure 1911 design risk of a dropped condition 1 or 2 pistol can be a show stopper for some or not.

But the Glock trigger pull for disassembly is a design flaw.

Are you referring to inertia firing or hammer-sear failure?

[TR675]

The Glock design is, IMO, basically defective. Products liability law, very generally, says that when a safer design can reasonably be implemented and risks can reasonably be designed out of a product, adoption of the safer design is required.

A safer design can reasonably be implemented - for an example see the M&P's sear tripping lever - and that would essentially eliminate the risk of touching a round off when pulling the trigger for disassembly. This isn't a theoretical risk, it's a real one that happens all the time to noobs and experienced people both as nyeti alluded to.

Glock has settled a lot of lawsuits over accidental shootings (ND's if you like), I would imagine because redesigning the product doesn't make economic sense when compared to the cost of the redesign. That is speculation on my part. Also, in some states - like Texas - products liability common law has been altered by statute to exclude a lot of firearms design issues from litigation at all. Smaller companies with similar "pull the trigger to take it down" designs - I want to say Jimenez, or one of its predecessors? - have lost similar lawsuits.

Again IMO, a trigger should do one thing and one thing only: launch a bullet downrange. I don't know why it's acceptable to have pulling it be part of the takedown process.

I do own and shoot Glocks; for me their positive attributes outweigh their negatives, but this issue is a serious safety issue that Glock should have addressed a long time ago.

[Tamara]

Jeff Cooper was a big advocate of dry-fire. If dry-fire is not necessarily a violation of the four rules, neither is the Glock's requirement to drop the firing pin to accomplish disassembly.

When you pull the trigger, have your sights (and the the muzzle) pointing at a safe backstop (not your hand).

Pffft. You and your logic! We're busy hating on Glocks, here!

It is possible to disassemble a Glock while observing the traditional four rules. It also shouldn't be controversial to say that the inherently flawed Glock disassembly procedure makes it less forgiving of not following the four rules than other designs.

(I'd like to watch someone who claims that "Glocks require you to violate the four rules to take them apart!" put a bushing wrench to a 1911...)