GLOCK: How Gaston Glock set the example for Sig's strategy with the P320 issues

[MontWyDaho]

Fellow Shooters,

The P320 recall prompted me to do some research into other brands/models of pistols recalled for safety reasons, and I discovered details that show why we should be just as disgusted with Glock as we are with Sig (it would be intellectually disingenuous to comment without reading the entire page- especially the first five of the last six paragraphs- at the link provided below)...

eta: The justified flack against Sig appears to be of two flavors- that the P320 wasn't truly drop safe, and the WAY Sig handled it; I'm just suggesting that Glock did the exact same thing FIRST, but many aren't ALSO faulting Glock, but instead are supporting Gaston.

To summarize, it appears Gaston Glock designed a pistol that wasn't initially drop safe, as established by the case of the Suffolk County PD officer whose unmodified Glock 19 consistently discharged when a mag was loaded and the slide was racked, with the department armorer's final test resulting in a three round burst, and by the failed DEA frisbee tests...

But Gaston refused to initiate a "safety recall" because the costs were too high, and instead enacted a "voluntary upgrade" to replace six fire control parts to fix the issue.

Regarding safety- why hasn't the Glock been improved so it doesn't require a trigger pull for disassembly, a feature the institutional markets are interested in?

The existing Glock design will likely always result in a higher RATE of UDs for Glocks than for P320s (because more people will probably press the trigger on a loaded Glock chamber than will drop a P320 at the -30 angle), and the human error in Glock disassembly doesn't really matter, only the actual real world number and RATE of UDs matter because of potential for injury or death.

I hope Sig fires Ron Cohen, but Gaston Glock is just as unethical, and for us to promote Glock while disparaging Sig is both hypocritical and petty.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080604164428/http://www.thegunzone.com:80/glock/upgrade-faq.html

[tylerw02]

I'm not entirely certain it is fair to suggest that negligent discharges can be in any way blamed on Glock. As you said, it's human error. Companies can make machines to reduce the likelihood of human error, but they cannot be held responsible nor should they. Do we blame Chevrolet when people drive under the influence or fail to stop at a red light? After all, there are mechanisms to prevent drink driving and collisions on motor vehicles. Should we require automakers to make every effort to prevent human error while operating their vehicles even if it means redesigning products?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lordhamster]

Fellow Shooters,

The P320 recall prompted me to do some research into other brands/models of pistols recalled for safety reasons, and I discovered details that show why we should be just as disgusted with Glock as we are with Sig (it would be intellectually disingenuous to comment without reading the entire page- especially the first five of the last six paragraphs- at the link provided below)...

To summarize, it appears Gaston Glock designed a pistol that wasn't initially drop safe, as established by the case of the Suffolk County PD officer whose unmodified Glock 19 consistently discharged when a mag was loaded and the slide was racked, with the department armorer's final test resulting in a three round burst, and by the failed DEA frisbee tests...

But Gaston refused to initiate a "safety recall" because the costs were too high, and instead enacted a "voluntary upgrade" to replace six fire control parts to fix the issue.

Regarding safety- why hasn't the Glock been improved so it doesn't require a trigger pull for disassembly, a feature the institutional markets are interested in?

The existing Glock design will likely always result in a higher RATE of UDs for Glocks than for P320s (because more people will probably press the trigger on a loaded Glock chamber than will drop a P320 at the -30 angle), and the human error in Glock disassembly doesn't really matter, only the actual real world number and RATE of UDs matter because of potential for injury or death.

I hope Sig fires Ron Cohen, but Gaston Glock is just as unethical, and for us to promote Glock while disparaging Sig is both hypocritical and petty.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080604164428/http://www.thegunzone.com:80/glock/upgrade-faq.html


Modern pistols are expected to be drop safe. Quite literally every single time someone shoots themselves with a "dropped" pistol, EVERY gun forum says... "bull, no modern firearms discharge when dropped... he must have tried to catch it."

I agree that Glock dropped the ball (pun intended) 25 years ago, but that doesn't excuse Sig from repeating the same mistake (in 2017) in their recall strategy. Having to pull the trigger to disassemble is a different topic entirely. I don't think it makes sense to conflate the two issues.

[JHC]

Well let's not leave Sam Colt and the highly dangerous SAA off the hook when it's loaded with six rounds. He started this shit.

[lordhamster]

Well let's not leave Sam Colt and the highly dangerous SAA off the hook when it's loaded with six rounds. He started this shit.

I personally blame the Dutch East India Company for their blunderbuss designs not being drop safe and their complete failure to issue a recall.

[MontWyDaho]

I'm not entirely certain it is fair to suggest that negligent discharges can be in any way blamed on Glock. As you said, it's human error. Companies can make machines to reduce the likelihood of human error, but they cannot be held responsible nor should they. Do we blame Chevrolet when people drive under the influence or fail to stop at a red light? After all, there are mechanisms to prevent drink driving and collisions on motor vehicles. Should we require automakers to make every effort to prevent human error while operating their vehicles even if it means redesigning products?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the context of Glock and Sig P320 safety- the number and RATE of unintentional discharges is what matters- the human error is what causes both the trigger pressing on a chambered round upon Glock disassembly, AND the dropping of a Sig P320 at a -30 angle... I just think the Glock human errors will occur more frequently than the Sig P320 human errors.

[Savage Hands]

#cringe (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=cringe)

[MontWyDaho]

Modern pistols are expected to be drop safe. Quite literally every single time someone shoots themselves with a "dropped" pistol, EVERY gun forum says... "bull, no modern firearms discharge when dropped... he must have tried to catch it."

I agree that Glock dropped the ball (pun intended) 25 years ago, but that doesn't excuse Sig from repeating the same mistake (in 2017) in their recall strategy. Having to pull the trigger to disassemble is a different topic entirely. I don't think it makes sense to conflate the two issues.

I totally agree that modern pistols are expected to be drop safe, but human error happens in design, testing, manufacturing, use, and it is what causes most unintentional discharges.

I don't blame Sig for using Gaston Glock's exact strategy because it worked well for Glock!

[tylerw02]

It honestly sounds like you just simply dislike Glock and you're using a really old case to try to justify it.

Again, can't blame them for people misusing their product, and there is no market demand to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy]

It happened 25 years ago, when the striker fired world was much smaller than it is today. Manufacturers learned from Glock since or learned it the hard way. Except Sig.

There is still a huge difference between an AD which happened because you didn't check your Glock and a P320 shooting you in the knee because it is not drop safe.

I've seen this kind of argumentation before, coming from diehard Sig fans who were trying to downplay this whole drop safety issue like it was (is) no big deal while in the meantime shitting on Glock.

[MontWyDaho]

It honestly sounds like you just simply dislike Glock and you're using a really old case to try to justify it.

Again, can't blame them for people misusing their product, and there is no market demand to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It honestly sounds like you simply dislike the Sig p320, but you give Glock a pass for the same thing because you like Glock...

Again, a bullet fired due to an unintentional discharge can injure or kill regardless of WHY that bullet left the barrel.

And there is a market for a striker pistol that doesn't require it's trigger be rearward for disassembly- to the tune of 500,000 not including the Army contract.

[rob_s]

It honestly sounds like you just simply dislike Glock and you're using a really old case to try to justify it.

Search his posts. Joined mid-P320 drama, owns one, and appears to have spent ~50% of the posts since then trying to defend it, with a good percentage of those posts seeming to hedge towards "well maybe the sig is a post or the company is corrupt but glock is worse or did it first".

[Wondering Beard]

I remember that "upgrade", and the outrage at Glock then was pretty high, considering that there was no internet.

Of those of us in this forum old enough to have owned and shot Glocks back then, this was pretty common knowledge. Gaston Glock is not, I think, considered by any one here to be a particularly ethical person.

I'd add that, if anything, that past Glock behavior should have been an incentive for SIG to do better. That SIG didn't is much more of an indictment of SIG than a proof that Glock led the way.

[Robinson]

But pulling the trigger to disassemble a Glock is part of its documented manual of arms. So is clearing the weapon before disassembly. An accidental discharge during disassembly is pretty much the same as an accidental discharge during dry fire practice.