They adopted Glocks in 1996 so unlikely.Originally Posted by John Hearne
They adopted Glocks in 1996 so unlikely.
I'd really like to read it too. I've tried to find it, no luck so far, but I'll keep looking.
Ha! The same thing happens in construction. Everyone from upper management to the little foreman is all "We do everything as safe as possible!!", right up until it costs 'em money, then they change whatever they need to get it done however they want.
I have to confess, I was pretty confident that I would find this study inside of a half hour. As it turns out, it's actually pretty difficult to find. I'm not saying it can't be found, but it's certainly going to be challenging, and here's why...
Best I can tell, the study we're looking for appears to be testing done by the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit in 1988. It was done on a wide variety of semi-automatic firearms which ultimately condemned Glock by name due to it's short and light trigger pull. For those of us that were alive in 1988, we can tell you whippershappers that believe it or not, there was no internet. I guess Al Gore hadn't got around to inventing it yet, but we survived thanks to Die Hard, Metallica, and Kelly Bundy.
So, two things are going to pose a challenge if this is the study being referenced. 1) As Todd pointed out, the FBI eventually transitioned to Glocks so materials condemning them for being unsafe were probably buried or redacted. And 2) Predating the internet, it's unlikely that a digital copy exists. If we happen to find it, it will most likely be a scan of a hard copy. Finding someone still taking up space on their server for a scanned FBI study from 1988 may prove difficult.
And thanks to BT91 recommending a pretty good beer, I'm not exactly on my game right now. Alas, the search continues.
Last edited by StraitR; 07-22-2016 at 07:28 PM.
I wonder if Tom Givens may have a copy of that manual laying around or know of someone who may have a copy. He's a master of arcane firearm related knowledge/data.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
Lon,
I can't check that right now. I'm teaching in Wisconsin and all my reference materials are still boxed up in Florida from our move.
While longer travel makes logical sense, I have been surprised by enough things, that I would really want to see the detailed study to assess the methods and conclusions.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Based on Todd's comments, we can ascertain the following... The study predates the FBI's adoption of Glocks in 1998. They found longer trigger travel had a factor in safety. Turned around and issued Glocks to their SA's some years later. With that said, could there be more recent data to refute the study and support their decision to use SFA? I'd like to read it either way, but I'm curious if people think the study still relevant given the FBI's current/future sidearm choice?
I tend to subscribe to the longer trigger = increased safety generalization, just so my position is clear.
Last edited by StraitR; 07-22-2016 at 10:04 PM.
As I said previously, common sense says longer = safer. However, FBI issues
DA/SA pistols and reports they are safer, issues Glocks and study is gone, is almost worthless without seeing the study.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I do remember that Todd said that the startle response initiates a very strong muscle contraction (25 lbs?)
which was much more than even heavy triggers. This was why heavy triggers did not help.
Reply With Quote