Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by aplomb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

aplomb

Glock was out of the running because lack of a "real" safety and their unwillingness to add one

View on HN

They built one for Austrian govt. trials.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/08/25/thumb-safety-g...

They have the only "real" safety: keep your finger out of the trigger guard. :-)

or for conceal carry...don't catch your shirt on the trigger...

Glocks have triggers that are pretty heavy, and you don't have to carry with a round in the chamber unless you're in _really_ bad places. Safety has its own issues: what if you don't completely disengage it or forget to do it at all? What if you forget to engage it and do something stupid because you thought your gun was on safety?

Who carries without a holster?

Both Jules and Vincent. Don't movies reflect real life?

Plaxico Burress as well. I did notice the little things in Europe, though; that part of the movie reflected reality.

Dude. I've been daily carrying a Glock since 2006, never had a negligent discharge.

Survivor bias - someone who has is less likely to post.

You can't just say "survivor bias" and think you have a solid argument. Let's examine your objection more critically.

I mentioned I'd carried every day since 2006. Suppose this isn't quite true, and I've only carried 330 days per year (this is too low, but still). Further, we just started 2017, and I started carrying in August 2006. This means I've carried roughly 3,437 days. If my carrying a Glock on any given day is as high as 99.9% safe (i.e., I have a 0.01% chance of a negligent discharge), then I should have a "survival" probability of only 3.2%. If my daily safety probability drops to only 99.7%, my probability of getting to now with no ND is 0.0%. Decreasing my daily safety probability to only 99% means my probability of no ND is 9.95e-14.

Now think about what this means. Either:

1. Carrying a Glock is very unsafe, and I'm incredibly lucky. In this case your claim of survivor bias would be warranted (assuming there weren't many others like me, which there are).

2. Carrying a Glock is very safe, and the chances of an ND are substantially less than 0.01% per day, in which case the charge of survivor bias is unwarranted.

It strikes me that #2 is the clear winner here.

I think the main thing you've demonstrated with your calculations is that a 0.01% chance of negligent discharge per day is in fact rather unsafe. In particular, a 0.01% chance of discharging per day means that with daily carry for two years, you are more likely to have experienced a negligent discharge than not.

Agreed! Which is why I stated that I think scenario #2 is the correct one, and we don't in fact have a legitimate case of survivor bias. Remember, this discussion began when I said I do it safely. The charge was made that this is survivor bias. By putting numbers to it, I think it becomes clear that the determining factor is not my bias but real, quantifiable safety.

Sadly, this comment of mine is incorrect. I meant 0.1%. My error comes from the same error in the comment I was responding to:

> 99.9% safe (i.e., I have a 0.01% chance of a negligent discharge)

I keep hearing this about Glocks. While kind-of true (if you're not prepared to shoot something, why is your finger in the trigger guard?) I also believe in safety-in-depth, so my first pistol was a revolver (very heavy trigger pull, hard to make a mistake), and my second was an HK USP with a positive safety.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Glock 19 and 26, they're great. But I wouldn't recommend them as first pistols. There's a hell of a lot going on in an autoloader, and another level of "this thing won't go off" is pretty reassuring in the beginning.

Considering the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot it can't be seriously considered as a service weapon.

Yeah, but the way a typical city PD discharges firearms makes the Mujahadeen look like professionals. The armed forces are much better at things like not having negligent discharges and, shooting what they're aiming for and finding a reason to shoot before opening fire. The police might not be able to handle a gun without five redundant safeties but a 18yo in a combat situation with a few months of training and an incentive to do their job seems to manage just fine.

the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot

Here's a youtube video of exactly that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY

As one of the comments said: "Just another example of a police officer shooting a black man for no reason."

The almost-ubiquitous Blackhawk SERPA retention holsters are a big contributor to this. The button you have to press to release the weapon from its holster makes it all too easy to hit the trigger before you intend to.

you really think safety toggles are to protect against fingers?!?

For a sidearm that you're going to leave in its holster until you intend to use it, the holster's retention mechanism sort of takes the place of a rifle's manual safety.

There isn't much detail in the article on how the decision was made, and I see no mention of a manual safety in particular. Do you have a reference that provides more information?

Check the image of the P320 on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320

Now look at the image of the Army handgun in this article. You can see a difference at the back of the slide, just about where a thumb safety should be. So it appears Sig added one. Wikipedia says (without attribution):

   The Modular Handgun System (MHS) or M17
   version of the P320 has an ambidextrous
   thumb safety.

That makes sense. For most soldiers, a handgun is a backup weapon. If you're expecting trouble, you bring something bigger. To the military, handguns need to take minimum attention when not in use. Hence the requirement for an explicit safety.

When not in use a handgun will be in its holster. When it's needed, you'd arguably want less to think about, such as worrying about disengaging a manual safety.

They may well have been a requirement for a manual safety. If there were, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an explicit mention of this. There are rumors that it was down to Glock or Sig:

While a number of companies submitted guns, rumor has it that it came down to Glock and SIG.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/1/19/the-keef...

If Glock was disqualified for not having a manual safety, why wouldn't it have been eliminated earlier? Also, Glock did include in models submitted for Austrian trials (see comment by 'mrbill upthread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13489074). For a contract as large as the US Army, I would imagine Glock would be willing to add a manual safety if it meant they'd get the contract.

Regardless, any of this is speculation unless there are definitive references out there that speak to why Sig was chosen over the other submissions.

Description of experienced firearms user shooting himself in the butt with a holstered firearm.[1] "I went to go get in the car and just heard a loud bang." The US Army reported in 2004 that about 10% of their casualties in Afghanistan were due to accidental weapons discharges.[2] The military wants guns that don't go off unexpectedly.

[1] http://concealednation.org/2016/02/when-bad-holsters-turn-wo...

[2] https://www.stripes.com/news/disturbing-trend-seen-in-neglig...

Wow. This all starts with me asking for a reference to support a comment by 'aplomb (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13488853):

Glock was out of the running because lack of a "real" safety and their unwillingness to add one

Sure, there's some albeit circumstantial support for this claim. But so far, that's what it is, and definitely not conclusive.

(As an aside, general arguments comparing the safety of firearms with and without external safeties are all over the internet and not something I'm interested in re-litigating here. I'm interested in knowing whether this played a role in the Army's decision.)

The references you provide here don't do much to further this circumstantial support. [1] is explicitly an argument for better holsters, not safeties. It's not clear that a similar issue would arise in the military. I'm not aware of how frequently the Army uses concealed carry holsters, and poorly designed ones at that.

[2] doesn't break down what weapons were involved with the negligent discharges. Of the two that were described, one was a 9mm pistol, the other an M16 which was on safe. There's a possibility that the pistol was a Glock (or other pistol with no manual safety). The article is from 2004, and the Marine who was killed was part of 3rd Battalion, 6th Regiment, which later became part of Marine Special Operations Command (if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly), which approved the Glock 19 for use only in Marsoc in 2016. It's more likely that it was a Berreta M9, which features a manual safety, given that this is has been the standard issue 9mm pistol for the Marines. Neither of these examples show that safeties prevent negligent discharges.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with legitimate discussion about why the Army chose Sig over Glock. I'm by no means arguing that the decision was wrong. I think it's interesting to learn about what criteria come into play and how these decisions are made.

I can see that my comment could be interpreted as questioning whether the P320 has a manual safety, which was not what I intended. I was asking for a reference that supports that Glock was dismissed for not having a manual safety. The fact that Sig apparently added one is circumstantial.

What do you mean by a real safety? Does the sig 320 have a manual safety?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com