[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

Now Cond 0 or 1 had nothing to do with this AD, this pistol
had been tampered with rendering the FP safty inoperative
and the cruciform not fully engaged with the striker lug.

Just swapping idea's with you.


Originally Posted by cglaspel
Anyways, SO took it to a SECOND Glock Armorer today, and thank goodness I did, I now have an answer,

#1- Firing pin block spring was bent, not straight like it should have been!!!

#2 The "sear" is not engaging the lug on the firing pin assembly properly!!

He says that since both of these issues are there, that It is highly likely that the pistol fired from the "half cocked" position.

Let me think...how did we get off on the C1 vs C3 side track?

Anyway, it sounds like the case has been partially solved. Can we say the explanation offered could result in the pistol firing from "half cocked" just by laying it down?

The other question is 'Who damaged the gun'? The final chapter should be very interesting.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by dosei

In short, it was defective. The spring that should have kept the firing pin block in position to properly "block" the striker/firing pin was actually jamming it and effectively defeating/disabling it. That coupled with an improper (i.e., nearly nonexistent) engagement between the "sear" on the trigger bar and the lug on the striker resulted in a perfect recipe for the resulting undesired discharge.

Of course, the real question is whether this is something that can occur during the reassembly of a firearm possibly after cleaning. Probably not after a normal field stripping type of cleaning since if that was the case, we probably would have heard of it before. It probably boils down to either it was miisassembled at the factory or it damaged during reassembly by an end user / gunsmith at some point in time after it left the factory. Glock might have excellent quality control, but nothing is 100%.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

The other question is 'Who damaged the gun'? The final chapter should be very interesting.

Indeed, I'm thinking it was a trade in and the original
owner screwed it up.

[cowboy1964]

This thread is making me nervous about striker fired designs.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

Are you implying that there is something else that your would like to do with a dead horse?

Don't ask, don't tell... Never mind...

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Are you implying that there is something else that your would like to do with a dead horse?

Don't ask, don't tell... Never mind...

That was in response to this post........... you know, beating a dead horse?

Originally Posted by tonyparson

Okay PhotoFeller we know you like and support C3 carry so will you please stop beating it to death on here?

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by tonyparson

Okay PhotoFeller we know you like and support C3 carry so will you please stop beating it to death on here?

Actually, I would prefer C1. I've recently purchased a Kahr CW9 that I will eventually carry with a round in the chamber IF/WHEN I get past the notion that its inherently dangerous.

I beat the C3 horse because you guys insist on beating the C1 horse. Your horse is just as dead as mine.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

Actually, I would prefer C1. I've recently purchased a Kahr CW9 that I will eventually carry with a round in the chamber IF/WHEN I get past the notion that its inherently dangerous.

I beat the C3 horse because you guys insist on beating the C1 horse. Your horse is just as dead as mine.

But the Glock is carried in C0, not C1...

[Christopher67]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

This thread is making me nervous about striker fired designs.

I agree, lol.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

I beat the C3 horse because you guys insist on beating the C1 horse. Your horse is just as dead as mine.

I knew I posted 2 horses for a reason. .

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

But the Glock is carried in C0, not C1...

C0 would apply if the striker/FP were 100% retracted.
It's actually (depending on who you ask) 58% to 65%.

The initial trigger take up is the remaining "cocking"

Lets call it Cond 0.5

[dosei]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

But the Glock is carried in C0, not C1...

Semantics...

When a properly functioning Glock has a round in the chamber and nothing is pulling the trigger, the "safeties" are all fully engaged. Thus it can also be stated that the Glock is in C1.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

I knew I posted 2 horses for a reason. .

By golly, you're right. And two dead horses are better than one.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

But the Glock is carried in C0, not C1...

Actually, I'll accept either C0 or C1 for Glocks. My inclination, however, is to say C0 is most accurate because all thats necessary to fire a chambered Glock is to pull the trigger.

In my simple way of seeing things, the only difference between a 1911 in C0 (cocked but not locked) and a Glock (partially cocked but not locked) is the trigger pull distance and weight. Some believe the Glock trigger constitutes a safety, but I don't get it. A 'safety', to me, means a device that prevents the trigger from being pulled. Period. No trigger pull, no BANG.

In the instant case, the OP's weapon would not have fired if a mechanical safety had been in employed.

Have I missed an important point(s) here? I'll not be surprised if I have, cause I'm in over my head.

[dosei]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

In the instant case, the OP's weapon would not have fired if a mechanical safety had been in employed.

Wrong. Given the mechanical problems/failures the gun had, an external manual safety would not have prevented the discharge.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by dosei

Wrong. Given the mechanical problems/failures the gun had, an external manual safety would not have prevented the discharge.

...because the trigger didn't have to be pulled in order for the gun to fire. I'm with ya on that dosei. I'll always be with ya when you're right!

[dango]

Well , now I'm all paranoid. I've taken my night stand gun apart several times now looking at things through different eyes.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by dango

Well , now I'm all paranoid. I've taken my night stand gun apart several times now looking at things through different eyes.

Congrats, dango. When it comes to firearm safety, me thinks a little paranoia can be a good thing.

Now I've got to start studying Kahr pistol mechanics to figure out if they're 75% cocked, half cocked, less than half cocked, or not cocked at all (I'm getting dizzy). The CW9 is intended to be my breakthrough to C1, but this discussion makes me want to learn about their safety system(s) and safety shortcomings before I move forward.

Exit stage left. Kahr forum here I come. Dang!

[PattonT]

I don't own a Kahr anymore but I seam to think they are 75% or more cocked.

[G-19]

I really don't see the issue with the firing pin partially "cocked". It can't hit the primer unless the trigger was pulled and the firing pin safety disengaged.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by G-19

I really don't see the issue with the firing pin partially "cocked". It can't hit the primer unless the trigger was pulled and the firing pin safety disengaged.

If you had read the whole thread you would know that
the trigger was not pulled, weapon never removed from
the holster. Here's what happened according to the armorer.

Note that the FP safty block and cruciform/striker lug were
out of spec.

Originally Posted by cglaspel

Anyways, SO took it to a SECOND Glock Armorer today, and thank goodness I did, I now have an answer,

#1- Firing pin block spring was bent, not straight like it should have been!!!

#2 The "sear" is not engaging the lug on the firing pin assembly properly!!

He says that since both of these issues are there, that It is highly likely that the pistol fired from the "half cocked" position.

[G-19]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

If you had read the whole thread you would know that
the trigger was not pulled, weapon never removed from
the holster. Here's what happened according to the armorer.

Note that the FP safty block and cruciform/striker lug were
out of spec.

Oh, I read it. I also know that someone had to mess with the gun for that to be the case. It don't matter who (LGS, previous owner or current owner) messed with it. This does not mean Glock pistols or any other gun that uses that design are any less safe than any other types. It means if you don't know what you are doing leave it alone.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by G-19

Oh, I read it. I also know that someone had to mess with the gun for that to be the case. It don't matter who (LGS, previous owner or current owner) messed with it. This does not mean Glock pistols or any other gun that uses that design are any less safe than any other types. It means if you don't know what you are doing leave it alone.

We aleady have a good idea that the LGS sold a used gun as new.
And I believe the original owner screwed up the gun so he
traded it in to the same LGS who never bothered to check
the gun over before putting it out for sale. All opinion and
supposition of course.

Glock will have the final word.

As far as Glock being safe, I carry one every day.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

C0 would apply if the striker/FP were 100% retracted.
It's actually (depending on who you ask) 58% to 65%.

The initial trigger take up is the remaining "cocking"

Lets call it Cond 0.5

I was thinking more like Condition 0.25... Maybe 0.125...

If I have a M1911 and it is cocked, but the safety is not on, then it is Condition 0 since all that is necessary for it to fire is for me to pull the trigger. The M1911 in this configuration is the definition of Condition 0. So, let's look at other firearms... The Glock in its normal carrying configuration also only requires someone to pull the trigger to make it fire... That sure looks like Condition 0 to me... If I have a semi-auto that is DAO or even DA/SA and there is one in the chamber and no thumb safety on it (or activated), it also only requires the pull of the trigger to make it fire. Same with a revolver operated in double action mode. These are Condition 0 also, but I suspect that most of us will agree that they are more forgiving of mistakes than the M1911 carried in that condition. In my opinion, the Glock is somewhere between the M1911 and a double action revolver or semi-auto. I guess it's all a matter of how much of a trigger pull is required for it fire. The Glock is a compromise between the light trigger pull of the M1911 and the heavier trigger pull of a DAO when in C0. I suspect that most people would agree that a M1911 carried in C0 is not particularly safe, whereas they would have have a problem with the carrying of a DAO semi-auto or revolver in that configuration. The Glock has a trigger pull somewhere between the two, so the safety falls somewhere in between the two also.

Now, if you modified a M1911 to have a significantly heavier pull than a Glock, which is safer? I believe that the default trigger pull on some M1911s is 4 lbs and the Glock might be as high as 8 lbs. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm too far off the actual values. If you were to modify the M1911 to have a *20 lb* pull, would it be safer than the Glock? My Sig P229 supposedly has a 10 lb DAO pull and I have no problem carrying it without any sort of safety engaged. So, would a trigger pull that was double of the Sig's make it even more safe? Still, they're all C0, it's just the level of C0 that we are debating...

And here we though that we only had to worry about C0,1,2,3&4...

Maybe we can change it so that C0 has a trigger pull modifier (e.g. C0-4 would be a 4 lb trigger pull, C0-10, a 10-lb trigger pull, etc)... But then if you are carrying a DA/SA, you might need to put the double action and single action trigger pulls in the condition statement... So, let's say that we have a DA/SA Beretta with a 10 lb initial DA pull followed by a 5 lb SA pull... Maybe call it carrying it in C0-10-5? Starting to get a bit complicated... Time to poor another beer...

[whitey4311]

I wonder how the FPB spring was bent and the gun was still put together? Either way someone messed with the gun because there is no other explanation.

For the FPB It has to be functioning properly or the extractor wont stay in place either so someone got creative. Placing it down on a hard surface caused the cruciform to slip down and release the striker seems to be the catalyst so if that was damaged it makes sense. I still think the trigger had to be pressed or moved because as soon as a round was chambered the gun would have fired even prior to setting the gun down hard.

What I want to know is if the OP fired this gun before carrying it or inspected it at all. If not I would suggest some training and go back to the armorer and ask for instruction how to detail strip a glock. Given the issues with this gun I would guess it could have gone auto or at least something discovered that it was unsafe. Did you just buy it then CCW the gun the next day?

Ahh the world of the general public who own guns.....