Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Can anyone here hook me up with official news/Dept reports of failures or safety issues with the tupperware pistol? Specifically the G17/19. Thank you very much.
Trying to get my Dept to switch from Glocks
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
The first place to start would be Dean's pages on http://www.thegunzone.com .
You will find that most of the Glock problems were not with the 9 Minimum models.(17/19) Herr Glocks problems came when they tried to change the caliber to higher pressure cartridges (10mm, 45ACP, .40S&W) and they made the barrels with not fully supported chambers. People who have switched out their OEM Glock barrels for aftermarket barrels with supported chambers (Kart, Bar-Sto etc...) have not really encountered problems. Few problems have happened when people follow the factory recommendations in the owners manual to not shoot lead bullets and only factory loaded jacketed ammunition.
You will find that most of the Glock problems were not with the 9 Minimum models.(17/19) Herr Glocks problems came when they tried to change the caliber to higher pressure cartridges (10mm, 45ACP, .40S&W) and they made the barrels with not fully supported chambers. People who have switched out their OEM Glock barrels for aftermarket barrels with supported chambers (Kart, Bar-Sto etc...) have not really encountered problems. Few problems have happened when people follow the factory recommendations in the owners manual to not shoot lead bullets and only factory loaded jacketed ammunition.
Joined
·
6,594 Posts
I don't think that anything in TGZ's Glock pages are going to serve as documentation sufficient to sway a Police Administrator and give you the result you desire.armoredman said:
For inexplicable reasons, the on-going NYPD Phase 3 issues with Glock Models 19 seem to be primarily the providence of NYPD.
The contentious Six-Part Product Upgrade, which has been well-documented, is now a dozen years old, although there are still on-going dimensions to this issue.
There are such a variety of issues that I can't begin to keep up with them… ironically the best place to get leads on them is on Eric Powell's GlockTalk Forum… it's a "clubhouse" for the lame, the halt and the terminally tenifer-impaired, and the top Glock cheerleaders like "Danny R" and "WalterGA" are pathologically incapable of being critical of anything emanating from the Deutsch-Wagram/Smyrna axis, but they are collectively the all-time largest assemblage of Glock shooters and if there's a problem, it'll show up there!
Of course, you'll have to wade through a long-ton of "What's that copper-colored gunk on my new Glock?" type of questions, but one of the most recent issues (raised also by a new poster here) has to do with last rounds nose-diving into the Models 17 and 19 feed ramps.
Another reasonable but not always reliable source would be the police teletypes… unfortunately they tend to be alarmist and there's usually, upon investigation, a lot "more to the story" than the initial teletypes reveal.
However, your characterization of the Glock as "the tupperware pistol" betrays a disdain that suggests that this is more an issue of personal disgruntlement than any genuine concerns about "safety issues."
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
I don't like them, have never liked them , and shoot one well enough to qualify expert with my Dept. I do believe them to be safety problems, especially with the limited training we offer - don't EVER believe the guff about "highly trained LE" - many IDPA shooters get far more than our rank and file.
Thanks for the help -anywhere else?
Thanks for the help -anywhere else?
You could show them this article.... 
.40-caliber handgun raises accuracy scores for those tested; MHP orders 650
Edited to comply with Forum's Intellectual Property Standards
Mississippi Highway Patrol Goes Glock
Troopers to trade in standard-issue pistols for Glocks
Troopers to trade in standard-issue pistols for Glocks
.40-caliber handgun raises accuracy scores for those tested; MHP orders 650
Edited to comply with Forum's Intellectual Property Standards
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Gee, yeah, that's a lotta help.
Joined
·
6,594 Posts
Yes, you could, and next time do so! Show them the original article in the proper place.TScottW99 said:
Here we excerpt and link to the source material… a number of us are published authors and respect the Intellectual Property of others. You agreed to abide by this policy when you signed onto the Forums.
Okay?
Instead of trying to convince them the Glock is "bad", convince them something else is just as good/better.
Get other options added.
Convince them you need your pistols to do this and have that and stack that deck so Glock has problems with this or that. Stuff like take down must not include pulling the trigger, must have "double strike" capability, ambi mag release, whatever. Write the Glock out of your specs and the stuff you like in.
Work your way into the chair behind the desk that makes the decision or gives them the info they use to make the decision.
Get somebody to make them an offer they can't refuse, or get some tapes/photos of the right folks doing the wrong things... :wink:
Get other options added.
Convince them you need your pistols to do this and have that and stack that deck so Glock has problems with this or that. Stuff like take down must not include pulling the trigger, must have "double strike" capability, ambi mag release, whatever. Write the Glock out of your specs and the stuff you like in.
Work your way into the chair behind the desk that makes the decision or gives them the info they use to make the decision.
Get somebody to make them an offer they can't refuse, or get some tapes/photos of the right folks doing the wrong things... :wink:
Valid Specs
Make a detailed list of valid requirements for your department, your situation.
Compare it against the known qualities of "good" firearms.
See what you get from this paper exercise.
Then evaluate the chosen weapons as part of a weapon system that starts with the manufacturers of gun and ammo, is used by the cop, and ends with the bad guy, but is paid for by the taxpayers you protect and serve.
Don't write specs to keep one gun or another _out_ of your acceptable guns, write your specs to encompass the good ones.
Easy for me to say, but hard to do.
Make a detailed list of valid requirements for your department, your situation.
Compare it against the known qualities of "good" firearms.
See what you get from this paper exercise.
Then evaluate the chosen weapons as part of a weapon system that starts with the manufacturers of gun and ammo, is used by the cop, and ends with the bad guy, but is paid for by the taxpayers you protect and serve.
Don't write specs to keep one gun or another _out_ of your acceptable guns, write your specs to encompass the good ones.
Easy for me to say, but hard to do.
BigMike makes a couple of good points.
I've written a lot of tests and specs for the US Gubmint over the years. The trick, in a Test Plan, is to write pass/fail criteria that are realistic and unambiguous. Including the characteristics of the "good guns" is nothing more than including test objectives and pass/fail criteria to get the desired result. It works, but it is a b*tch to get right.
A legitimate part of the process of product testing comes at Test Report writing time, when it's time to collect all the test data and reduce it to format compatible to answering the test objectives and criteria. It is normal to discover, once you have all the data in front of you, that some of the test objectives were superfluous, or duplicates of others, that you were asking the wrong questions, that some test objectives test objectives were poorly worded, that some test objectives were flat-out irrelevant, or the most common discovery ... that some important objectives were omitted. The solution to this is to go back and revise the Test Plan to include the questions that came up during testing. This could be due to a feature of one of the test items that were found to be extremely useful. It may not have been as well executed on all the candidates. It's okay to do as long as the data was collected to evaluate that feature on all the test items and that the Test Plan revision can be justified, based on real need. The first problem with this is the demand from all suppliers to have the opportunity to meet the new requirement.
Another problem I've seen in most "civilian" gun tests is the universe of one sample. One sample of each candidate competes with the others. Anyone that remembers the M9 competition will recall the multiple sample submission requirement. Some tests were written as test-to-destruct objectives. I think multiple samples are the way to do it ... if the resulting contract makes it worth it to the suppliers. Buying the test samples eliminates that problem. Oh, by the way, does anyone really believe that the USG just sat down and wrote a Test Plan without some sample items to examine prior to the test? I don't. Actually, I think that is a wise course. Otherwise, it would be too easy to ask for requirements that no supplier can satisfy, or, on the other hand, you could get a KelTec 3AT for a service weapon. :shock: Including simple things like a max and min total weight can deal with those problems, but you need some samples to examine before hand. That way you can set the test criteria outside the known physical parameters and wait and see what the suppliers submit for test. 'Could be some pleasant surprises. But the real answer to all this is to combine build-to specifications with performance specifications. Performance specs avoid the "Omigod, you built it just like I told you" syndrome.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what launched me to participate on this thread, except that writing test plans and reports is something I've done a lot of and I've always wanted to do it for firearms testing. Alas, military avionics is all I was able to play with.
I've written a lot of tests and specs for the US Gubmint over the years. The trick, in a Test Plan, is to write pass/fail criteria that are realistic and unambiguous. Including the characteristics of the "good guns" is nothing more than including test objectives and pass/fail criteria to get the desired result. It works, but it is a b*tch to get right.
A legitimate part of the process of product testing comes at Test Report writing time, when it's time to collect all the test data and reduce it to format compatible to answering the test objectives and criteria. It is normal to discover, once you have all the data in front of you, that some of the test objectives were superfluous, or duplicates of others, that you were asking the wrong questions, that some test objectives test objectives were poorly worded, that some test objectives were flat-out irrelevant, or the most common discovery ... that some important objectives were omitted. The solution to this is to go back and revise the Test Plan to include the questions that came up during testing. This could be due to a feature of one of the test items that were found to be extremely useful. It may not have been as well executed on all the candidates. It's okay to do as long as the data was collected to evaluate that feature on all the test items and that the Test Plan revision can be justified, based on real need. The first problem with this is the demand from all suppliers to have the opportunity to meet the new requirement.
Another problem I've seen in most "civilian" gun tests is the universe of one sample. One sample of each candidate competes with the others. Anyone that remembers the M9 competition will recall the multiple sample submission requirement. Some tests were written as test-to-destruct objectives. I think multiple samples are the way to do it ... if the resulting contract makes it worth it to the suppliers. Buying the test samples eliminates that problem. Oh, by the way, does anyone really believe that the USG just sat down and wrote a Test Plan without some sample items to examine prior to the test? I don't. Actually, I think that is a wise course. Otherwise, it would be too easy to ask for requirements that no supplier can satisfy, or, on the other hand, you could get a KelTec 3AT for a service weapon. :shock: Including simple things like a max and min total weight can deal with those problems, but you need some samples to examine before hand. That way you can set the test criteria outside the known physical parameters and wait and see what the suppliers submit for test. 'Could be some pleasant surprises. But the real answer to all this is to combine build-to specifications with performance specifications. Performance specs avoid the "Omigod, you built it just like I told you" syndrome.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what launched me to participate on this thread, except that writing test plans and reports is something I've done a lot of and I've always wanted to do it for firearms testing. Alas, military avionics is all I was able to play with.
Guys, he does not care if it's valid, ambiguous, or fair; he wants Glocks out and sumthin' else in.
What about the large PDs that do not allow Glocks, like Chicago (still)? Find out why they don't, peddle the same reasons...
If you are searching for dirt, use the Mother Jones article on Glocks (Hair Triggers, High Profit Margins?) and the Detoit newspaper articles on Glocks for pointers to the folks who may have some, know where to get more. :twisted:
What about the large PDs that do not allow Glocks, like Chicago (still)? Find out why they don't, peddle the same reasons...
If you are searching for dirt, use the Mother Jones article on Glocks (Hair Triggers, High Profit Margins?) and the Detoit newspaper articles on Glocks for pointers to the folks who may have some, know where to get more. :twisted:
Joined
·
491 Posts
I've noticed this same post-question on the 1911 Forum and the High Roadarmoredman said:
Joined
·
215 Posts
NCIC Teletype Bulletins...
describing catastrophic frame failures with .40+ Glock pistols, have been sent out to all LE agencies, via the "nationwide broadcast" distribution outlet- literally since the guns came out. I had dispatchers saving them for about 4 years, since I was the FTO for a small agency or two. It didn't take long to create quite a pile of them.
The agencies themselves are pretty protective of these, mostly because we are taught from DAY 1 that this stuff is confidential, and that there are stiff civil and criminal penalties for improper distribution of most NCIC info.
OK, fine. Privileged info, like the "non-public records" portion criminal histories, etc.- anybody can understand that. But we are talking about officer safety issues here, and the continued use of taxpayer funds for a product that is developing a problematic track record. This is sort of like the "Exploding Crown Vic Patrol Car" issue. I think that you could probably get it via the Freedom of Information Act, if you wanted to go to the trouble and expense. Keep in mind that these things originate at the individual agencies, and that brevity is the cornerstone of NCIC bulletins. You might well find yourself having to request additional info from hundreds of agencies around the country- with varying degrees of success.
My answer to the problem is to work for LE agencies that give me a choice in the matter- and to carry something else.
describing catastrophic frame failures with .40+ Glock pistols, have been sent out to all LE agencies, via the "nationwide broadcast" distribution outlet- literally since the guns came out. I had dispatchers saving them for about 4 years, since I was the FTO for a small agency or two. It didn't take long to create quite a pile of them.
The agencies themselves are pretty protective of these, mostly because we are taught from DAY 1 that this stuff is confidential, and that there are stiff civil and criminal penalties for improper distribution of most NCIC info.
OK, fine. Privileged info, like the "non-public records" portion criminal histories, etc.- anybody can understand that. But we are talking about officer safety issues here, and the continued use of taxpayer funds for a product that is developing a problematic track record. This is sort of like the "Exploding Crown Vic Patrol Car" issue. I think that you could probably get it via the Freedom of Information Act, if you wanted to go to the trouble and expense. Keep in mind that these things originate at the individual agencies, and that brevity is the cornerstone of NCIC bulletins. You might well find yourself having to request additional info from hundreds of agencies around the country- with varying degrees of success.
My answer to the problem is to work for LE agencies that give me a choice in the matter- and to carry something else.
You might want to "just get over it."
Glock is an excellent weapon, particularly the Models 17/19.
My biggest problem with using the Glock is that I've forgotten how to clear malfunctions because I never have any!
You might want to go to TGZ main page and click on the "Top kB of 2004" and take a look at the fractured H&K UPS 45.
Glock is an excellent weapon, particularly the Models 17/19.
My biggest problem with using the Glock is that I've forgotten how to clear malfunctions because I never have any!
You might want to go to TGZ main page and click on the "Top kB of 2004" and take a look at the fractured H&K UPS 45.
Yep. They can't be that bad and be that popular for this long. Getting em booted will just piss off all the Glock fans, and there are many.
Rather than be Don Quixote w an impossible dream, be Machiavelli w a plan and just get another choice ya like authorized along w them.
Rather than be Don Quixote w an impossible dream, be Machiavelli w a plan and just get another choice ya like authorized along w them.
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Proposal submitted to the Technology Committee, who was actively interested. So, instead of "getting over it", I am "getting in on it". Even the complex Warden likes the idea.
We'll see. :lol:
We'll see. :lol:
I won't argue the point of whether or not you should or shouldn't continue to carry the Glock. But if you are merely switching from the Glock to another gun because of lack of training than you are doing it for all the wrong reasons.armoredman said:
Manipulation doesn't come with the gun you purchase it comes with the time and training spent with mastering that firearm. I'm sorry your department doesn't want to invest in the safety of its own officers and in turn the safety of its citizens.
Maybe you should focus on having the department spring for more training, instead of different firearms.
Just my 2cents
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
