Thanks to a recent LA Times op-ed, there has been a lot of discussion about how striker-fired pistols — like the Glock — are a “bad choice” for police. The author of the piece, Bob Owens, argued that the short travel triggers on these guns and “lack of a safety” --which is inaccurate-- make them susceptible to unintentional discharge, especially under stress.
The theory is that a double/single action (DA/SA) gun would be safer, because the long DA trigger stroke would prevent officers from unconsciously firing when their fingers strayed onto the trigger during stressful encounters.
This is a software problem, not a hardware problem. This is more about training, leadership, personal habits, and personal responsibility than technology. I understand that stress can have cognitive and physiological effects that make us more likely to commit errors, but I don’t think that focusing on hardware is the solution. Even so, for the purposes of today’s discussion, let’s play along with the hardware focus.
Addressing the Argument
Advocates of the DA/SA design claim these guns are less prone to unintentional discharge because they have a longer and heavier trigger pull, and because many of them have a mechanical safety that is not disengaged simply by pulling the trigger. They think these factors make them a better choice for a police gun.
I don’t agree, but even if we accept the premise that a longer and heavier trigger might reduce unintentional discharges, there are other safety issues with DA/SA guns which could make them an unsuitable choice for police service.
The longer and heavier trigger pulls of the DA/SA designs can make them more difficult for smaller statured officers to shoot. Many officers have problems reaching the long triggers on these guns with their shorter fingers, and also have difficulties controlling the heavy, 12-15 pound double action pulls. As a result, they struggle to fire these weapons with efficiency and accuracy, which is a safety problem in itself. It’s worth noting that scores in training and qualification usually improve dramatically when agencies switch to striker-fired designs, with their shorter trigger reach and lighter pull weights.
Regrettably, some officers in the past have resorted to thumb cocking their DA/SA pistols for the first shot, to avoid the long and heavy DA trigger. By doing so, they greatly increase the risk of fumbling or unintentionally firing the pistols. In some extreme cases, reckless officers even treated the first double action round as a “throw away” shot, whose only job was to put the gun into the more manageable SA mode — an action with truly frightening safety implications.
The transition between Double and Single Action modes on these pistols is problematic as well. It takes a great deal of time and effort in training for a shooter to master the two very different pulls, and in the stress of combat, we have seen many officers unintentionally fire a round while the trigger was in the very light and very short SA mode. Any argument that a DA/SA gun is somehow “safer” than a striker-fired gun, because of the longer and heavier DA trigger pull, must conveniently ignore these incidents and the fact that the SA mode on these guns is much shorter and lighter than any striker-fired trigger is.
The manual of arms on most DA/SA pistols is much more complex than the striker-fired designs. The most popular DA/SA pistols in police service incorporate some kind of “decocker” mechanism, which safely lowers the hammer from SA to DA mode. In the heyday of the DA/SA pistol in American law enforcement, it was not uncommon for officers to forget to decock their pistols when they were off target, both in training and on the street. This safety violation often lead to unintentional discharges and injuries, particularly when covering a downed suspect or re-holstering.
Many of the popular DA/SA designs incorporate a mechanical thumb safety that is slide-mounted. It can be difficult for small-handed officers to reach these safety levers with the firing hand thumb, as intended. Oftentimes, these officers are forced to sacrifice a good grip on the pistol to reach the safety, or they are required to use their non-firing hand to deactivate it, neither of which is acceptable in combat. Additionally, these safeties are awkward to disengage, due to the upward thrust required to “off safe” them. This movement counters the natural clenching movement of the hand under stress, and it also weakens the firing grip, reducing control.
Even worse, some officers fumble or forget them entirely under stress. Non-dedicated personnel who don’t train adequately with their equipment are susceptible to forgetting to disengage the safety, or screwing it up under duress. The problem is serious and likely enough that many agencies — and some branches of the US military — require personnel armed with these weapons to carry them off safe in their holsters.
Instead of fixing the problem, this introduces another safety hazard, because the lever can be unknowingly bumped to the ON SAFE position, and if it’s not part of the officer’s routine to off safe as part of the draw, the gun won’t work when they need it.
Solving the Problem
We could play this tit-for-tat game all day long. I could switch sides and make an equally convincing argument, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere closer to fixing the problem.
Cops have been having unintentional discharges with all kinds of guns since they started carrying them, and I believe our salvation lies in focusing on the human element, not the technology. There isn’t a single design yet that has eliminated the risk of unintentional discharges, so let’s not waste time and energy arguing about widgets that would be better spent on training and leading the people who use them.
