Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/8/2006 10:00:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 9:57:31 PM EDT by 1IV]
I heard a departmant in Oregon was shooting some Bad ammo thru some G21s and had two failures. So they went back to the 9mm, and now one of the cops hurt is sueing the Glock Co. for 50 Million$$$. WTF

Any details? Rumor has it they were trying hot loads.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 10:22:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1IV:
I heard a departmant in Oregon was shooting some reloaded ammo thru some G21s and had two failures. So they went back to the 9mm, and now one of the cops hurt is sueing the Glock Co. for 50 Million$$$. WTF

Any details? Rumor has it they were trying hot loads.



if they shot reloaded ammo then they won't get anything from glock, that voids the warrenty
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 10:41:45 AM EDT
Hes screwed, Reloaded huh? Fact I can't remember the last new gun that didn't have a extra piece of paper stating that reloads void warrenty.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 10:49:18 AM EDT
everyone of the ones I have came with paper work that said it voided teh warrenty, ok my mauser didn't
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 10:54:24 AM EDT
If I'm not mistaken the ammo was Federal factory ammo. In fact, it is not ynheard of for Glock's to KB with factory ammo, particularly Federal. Furthermore, the success of Glocks products shows a negative correlation to bore size- the 9MMs are great, but the .45s aren't and the .40s are in between.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:27:54 PM EDT
a guy in the handgun forum put a g21 through hell and then some, i think he said aprox. 15k rounds fired, buried in sand, mud, ice, ect. even droped from his roof onto pavement and from an airplane into a field. only cosmetic damage if i rember correct. hell i can't even afford 15,000 rds. of ammo
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:34:45 PM EDT
That was Steve Thompson from ADCO. I know 1 serious shooter who uses the G21; he has the internals replaced every 3K rounds.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:35:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 1:39:26 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
It's the Portland Police Bureau, it was not reloaded ammo. They were shooting factory ammo. Google it, easy to find the story. Dunno bout a lawsuit tho.

www.thegunzone.com/glock/ppb.html
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:45:38 PM EDT
Portland officer sues Glock for millions
A Portland Police officer who was injured while firing a handgun has filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the manufacturers of the gun and the ammunition.

Officer Florin B. Pirv was taking a qualification test in March 2004 with a .45 caliber Glock 21 when the “breech/cartridge feed ramp fractured, causing backward propulsion of hot gases, hot air, and shrapnel to be blown into Pirv’s face, body, and hands,” according to the suit.

The lawsuit names Glock and two ammunition-makers, Federal Cartridge Company and Alliant Technosystems, also known as ATK. Glock is based in Georgia. The ammunition-makers are based in Minnesota.

None returned phone calls and emails seeking comment.

Pirv was one of two Portland officers injured while firing .45-caliber Glocks in March 2004, prompting Portland Police Chief Derrick Foxworth to order the recall of the weapons carried by 230 officers.

The bureau replaced them with 9mm Glocks.

Pirv’s suit seeks $50,000 in compensatory damages, $3 million for pain and suffering and $50 million in punitive damages.

Pirv is assigned to a patrol shift, according to a Portland Police spokeswoman.

-- Ashbel S. Green

source: http://www.oregonlive.com/newslogs/...es/2006_02.html


__________________


Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:00:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 3:00:26 PM EDT by Curare]
Sounds like a pretty easy suit to win. The lost business for Glock will be devastating even if the jury awards not one cent.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:00:25 PM EDT
bs, glock should tell them to STFU and fuck off
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:00:59 PM EDT
Nice.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:05:38 PM EDT
I question what shape the guns were in. Theres different kinds of cops. Some are uber tactical arfcom ninjas and then there are the guys that shoot thier guns and quals and never touch them until next year. I've heard some bad stories regarding cops caring for guns.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:24:31 PM EDT
yea the glock was soooooooo bad that the department got rid of those BAD HORRIBLY PIECE OF SHIT ACCIDENT PRONE GLOCKS for.............the glock 9mm, WTF? LOL
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 8:54:11 PM EDT
I know of a couple .40s that have come apart on the range ( not nearly so spectacularly tho) and agencies dont generally raise much of a fuss. I think it was the extent of the damage that caused the reaction. 9mm pistols rarely have any problems like this. ( cant think of any offhand )

It is very true that some cops barely know which end the bullets come out of.


In agency qualifications normally an armorer inspects the pistol prior to firing on the range. I'm confident it was not a bore obstruction. It may very well have been the ammo or something seriously wrong with the particular pistols. I wonder what happened with the independant lab testing of the pistols.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 9:03:53 PM EDT
why are they blaming the pistols for what seems like an ammo problem?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 9:57:03 PM EDT
I am a glock owner, and I like my 21, I have never seen a problem with any of my cases, and I shoot white box ammo in IDPA.... Strange. Sad. Thanks to you for the link.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:30:27 AM EDT
chamber cracked with the ramp cracked too, thats the ammo
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:31:59 AM EDT
Maybe Glock should work on that ability to fire out of battery problem that some of their pistols have? Just a thought.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:04:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:06:47 AM EDT by MuRDoC]

Originally Posted By Z1500:
Maybe Glock should work on that ability to fire out of battery problem that some of their pistols have? Just a thought.



non of my glocks do, and if it did fire out of battery it wouldn't take the chamber and ramp out


edited to add: I just checked all my Glocks and 1911's, they won't fire out of battery
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 1:53:12 PM EDT
The two guns that blew up in Portland were examined by HP White labs, who concluded that the culprit was the ammunition, not the gun (ammo was Federal factory ammo, NOT reloads). Portland PB tried really hard to get them to say it was the gun, but it wasn't. I don't think that officer has much chance of winning that suit, at least against Glock.

Glock must have decided something needed fixing on the 21, though- I was inspecting a brand new one last week, and noticed that the feed ramp had been beefed up quite a bit. Didn't hear any official word about it, though.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 1:56:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By offroader333:
a guy in the handgun forum put a g21 through hell and then some, i think he said aprox. 15k rounds fired, buried in sand, mud, ice, ect. even droped from his roof onto pavement and from an airplane into a field. only cosmetic damage if i rember correct. hell i can't even afford 15,000 rds. of ammo

He also shot it with a 22
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 2:00:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:

Originally Posted By Z1500:
Maybe Glock should work on that ability to fire out of battery problem that some of their pistols have? Just a thought.



non of my glocks do, and if it did fire out of battery it wouldn't take the chamber and ramp out


edited to add: I just checked all my Glocks and 1911's, they won't fire out of battery

Your glock will. It can be a few mm shy of full battery and still fire. BTDT with a Glock27. sprayed gasses out the side and top and didn't do any good to the next round in the mag but it chunked the lead down range, ejected the brass, and threw the next round into battery.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 6:07:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:
Sounds like a pretty easy suit to win. The lost business for Glock will be devastating even if the jury awards not one cent.



I don't think the lost sale of 230 pistols will cause Glock to file for bankruptcy.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:24:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 9:30:56 PM EDT by number1copper]
I have to chime in here!! I am a police officer for the Portland Police Bureau and have been the last 8 years...I am also a firearms instructor there and am very familiar with the Glock problem...before any one else goes popping off at the mouth about this...do a little research...police agencies across the nation are getting rid of their Glock 21's and 22's...the problem comes because there is an unsupported portion of the bullet casing when the round is chambered because of the design in the feed ramp...the unsupported area of the casing is what caused TWO of our Glocks to literally blow up...the pressure of the round going off sent the bullet down the barrel, but also caused the casing to rupture because of the unsupported area sending part of the explosion down through the triggerguard and blowing apart the gun....we did send the pistols to HP White to have them examined as to what caused this to happen, and this is what was discovered..that is was the GUNS, NOT THE AMMO...so you are entirely mistaken!!...we use high end factory Federal Law Enforcement ammo....the 9mm Glock fully encloses the bullet case and does not have this problem...thus all of the pressure is sent down the barrel behind the bullet. I have carried a 9 mm all along, but I looked at my personally owned 22, and it had the same problem, so I swapped out the barrel for a Jarvis, which fully supports the cartridge all the way around.....if you don't believe me...Google search it!!!! The Washington State Patrol just got rid of every one of their Glocks for this very same reason. And we have a few more cops than 230....try 1000

As to the lawsuit...the officer is fairly new and so was his Glock...we are all very interested to see how it plays out also!!!
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:54:13 PM EDT
I've been hearing about the unsuported chamber on the Glocks (anything other than the 9mm) for some time. I figured if it was the cause of problems, Glock would have fixed it long ago. IF it turns out to be the case, there really is no excuse for their engineers not to correct the fault years ago.

I suspect the Springfield XD would be a very nice choice to replace these Glocks...
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:05:14 PM EDT
Look at it from Glock's perspective though....Fix each gun one at a time as they blow up and settle out of court on a lawsuit here and there...or recall every 21 and 22 out there....with both of ours that blew up, Glock said, "Send us the pistols, we'll send you new ones"
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:08:57 PM EDT
I read the lab report- pretty clearly said it was the ammo, not the gun.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:36:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sparky315:
I read the lab report- pretty clearly said it was the ammo, not the gun.



Is the report posted online somewhere?

My Glock 22 had a 6 o'clock failure at round 52 the day I bought it NIB. I was using winchester silvertips. The frame was cracked and broke the trigger, it blew out the extractor and damaged the slide stop. Glock does/did have a problem with unsupported chambers. My incident was in 1992 and it may have been addressed in later guns.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:20:59 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:29:52 AM EDT
Interesting, but the cop shouldnt get a dime unless there a verified defect from when it left the factory. Since a lab already proclaimed it was the ammo, it is a non-issue
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:37:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By offroader333:
a guy in the handgun forum put a g21 through hell and then some, i think he said aprox. 15k rounds fired, buried in sand, mud, ice, ect. even droped from his roof onto pavement and from an airplane into a field. only cosmetic damage if i rember correct. hell i can't even afford 15,000 rds. of ammo



The total round count was 150k - 15k of that was without cleaning - click here for the condensed test.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:01:01 AM EDT
Tagged. My issue weapon is a Glock 22.


I really like my Glock 17. I wish I could carry it and not the 22.

___________________________



Link Posted: 2/13/2006 3:28:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 3:29:20 AM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By survivorman:
Pirv’s suit seeks $50,000 in compensatory damages, $3 million for pain and suffering and $50 million in punitive damages.



How badly injured was this guy?

Any loss of vision, loss of body parts, or just some scratches on the guy's face?

$53,050,000.00 sounds like just a bit too damned much.

Not surprised to hear it, coming out of the PPB, though.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 3:48:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By survivorman:
Pirv’s suit seeks $50,000 in compensatory damages, $3 million for pain and suffering and $50 million in punitive damages.



How badly injured was this guy?

Any loss of vision, loss of body parts, or just some scratches on the guy's face?

$53,050,000.00 sounds like just a bit too damned much.

Not surprised to hear it, coming out of the PPB, though.



Article posted at this link:

forums.realpolice.net/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=10770

Says that Pirv received no injuries.

Article posted at this link:

www.thegunzone.com/glock/ppb.html

Says minor injuries, which I assume to be scratches and minor lacerations.

$53,050,000.00 is, indeed, too damned much.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 5:34:09 AM EDT
The attorneys see Glock's deep pockets and are probably advising this guy to ask for 53 million to make the actual negotiated settlement (if any) larger than it would be if they asked for a smaller amount. Good luck getting a large settlement or punitive damages if the lab report blames the ammo and is introduced as evidence (which it surely will be).
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 7:57:28 AM EDT
I'm not sure how bad exactly he was hurt...I heard rumors he had surgery as a result.....As far as reading the report....I DON'T BELIEVE YOU unless you work for the lab,, work for Glock, or are in the Training Division of the Portland Police Bureau!!!! Bottom line!!
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:01:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By number1copper:
I'm not sure how bad exactly he was hurt...I heard rumors he had surgery as a result.....As far as reading the report....I DON'T BELIEVE YOU unless you work for the lab,, work for Glock, or are in the Training Division of the Portland Police Bureau!!!! Bottom line!!



Do you really think that nobody outside your agency's training bureau, HP White or Glock has seen that lab report? Have you read it yourself, or are you just parrotting the agency line? I didn't keep a copy or I would post it, but you have access, right? Put your money where your mouth is and post a copy of the lab report for everyone else to read.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:12:24 AM EDT
I think that if your gun goes KABOOM with factory ammo you have every right to sue. You would sue Ford if your car had a gas line run through the passenger compartment and it ruptured and burned you, wouldnt you?

These suits are not the same as the ones directed at gunmakers for the unlawful use of firearms.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:38:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:
I think that if your gun goes KABOOM with factory ammo you have every right to sue. You would sue Ford if your car had a gas line run through the passenger compartment and it ruptured and burned you, wouldnt you?

These suits are not the same as the ones directed at gunmakers for the unlawful use of firearms.



But if the lab determined it was an ammo problem, how is Glock liable?

That would be like Chevron having a bad batch of gas, and then blowing up your car. Do you sue Chevron or Ford?
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 11:34:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:
I think that if your gun goes KABOOM with factory ammo you have every right to sue. You would sue Ford if your car had a gas line run through the passenger compartment and it ruptured and burned you, wouldnt you?

These suits are not the same as the ones directed at gunmakers for the unlawful use of firearms.



This is still a frivolous lawsuit.

$50,000 compensatory damages
$3,000,000 pain and suffering
$50,000,000 punitive damages

If Pirv was uninjured, or only received minor injuries, what does he need $50,000 compensatory damages for? Medical would have been paid for by the department. New shooting glasses, new uniform, maybe? Those aren't $50,000.

If Pirv only received minor injuries, what pain and suffering is worth $3,000,000? Mental anguish, being afraid of a firearm? Reports show that he went back on duty shortly after the incident.

$50,000,000 punitive damages. This is the monetary amount assigned as a "punishment" for Glock releasing a faulty product.

Even if the product was faulty, $50,000,000?! Give me a break! Why does Pirv deserve this, over anyone else?

The damned pistol wasn't even owned by Pirv, it was owned by the department, so if anyone should be suing for punitive damages, it should be the PPB.

Using your example of a faulty Ford vehicle giving me a gasoline burn, if, after an investigation, proof could be shown that Ford had a faulty design that caused me to get burned, then, if they weren't willing to make things right, I'd sue for actual losses.

That's a few things.

Time lost from emloyment for medical treatment.
Medical expenses.
Replacement vehicle.

Shit happens. Sometimes people die. That truly sucks, but the only time we should be sticking someone with millions upon millions of dollars of punitive damages are when we have proof that they knowingly released a product with a faulty design through an intended negligence.

This lawsuit is a travesty of justice, and should be an embarrassment to anyone who calls themselves an American.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:22:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ranger_SXT:

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:
I think that if your gun goes KABOOM with factory ammo you have every right to sue. You would sue Ford if your car had a gas line run through the passenger compartment and it ruptured and burned you, wouldnt you?

These suits are not the same as the ones directed at gunmakers for the unlawful use of firearms.



But if the lab determined it was an ammo problem, how is Glock liable?

That would be like Chevron having a bad batch of gas, and then blowing up your car. Do you sue Chevron or Ford?



If it was 100% ammo go after Federal. Unsupported chamber on the .40 but not on the 9 makes me think it is the Glock. Brass seperates every now and then a gun shouldnt wound you if it does.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 3:09:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ranger_SXT:

Originally Posted By DanishM1Garand:
I think that if your gun goes KABOOM with factory ammo you have every right to sue. You would sue Ford if your car had a gas line run through the passenger compartment and it ruptured and burned you, wouldnt you?

These suits are not the same as the ones directed at gunmakers for the unlawful use of firearms.



But if the lab determined it was an ammo problem, how is Glock liable?

That would be like Chevron having a bad batch of gas, and then blowing up your car. Do you sue Chevron or Ford?



You sue everybody involved who has deep pockets, and hope someone just writes you a big, fat check to go away.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:09:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GlobalFear:
I question what shape the guns were in. Theres different kinds of cops. Some are uber tactical arfcom ninjas and then there are the guys that shoot thier guns and quals and never touch them until next year. I've heard some bad stories regarding cops caring for guns.



When I wasa cop I was qualifying one night and my sgt pulled his Smith 686 and went to qualify with it and it wouldn't shoot...the cylinder was CORRODED SHUT. He laughed like it was the funniest thing ever.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:23:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By number1copper:
I'm not sure how bad exactly he was hurt...I heard rumors he had surgery as a result.....As far as reading the report....I DON'T BELIEVE YOU unless you work for the lab,, work for Glock, or are in the Training Division of the Portland Police Bureau!!!! Bottom line!!





Any gun can Kb. I have personally observed a 1911 blow up. Think about how many million's of rounds are fired by Glock pistols every year. And there are only 10-20 reports of problems. I think it's the ammo, or a training issue.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 5:04:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMorden:

Originally Posted By GlobalFear:
I question what shape the guns were in. Theres different kinds of cops. Some are uber tactical arfcom ninjas and then there are the guys that shoot thier guns and quals and never touch them until next year. I've heard some bad stories regarding cops caring for guns.



When I wasa cop I was qualifying one night and my sgt pulled his Smith 686 and went to qualify with it and it wouldn't shoot...the cylinder was CORRODED SHUT. He laughed like it was the funniest thing ever.



Ever see a cop put his gun in a dish washer set on pots/pans?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:38:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sparky315:

Originally Posted By number1copper:
I'm not sure how bad exactly he was hurt...I heard rumors he had surgery as a result.....As far as reading the report....I DON'T BELIEVE YOU unless you work for the lab,, work for Glock, or are in the Training Division of the Portland Police Bureau!!!! Bottom line!!



Do you really think that nobody outside your agency's training bureau, HP White or Glock has seen that lab report? Have you read it yourself, or are you just parrotting the agency line? I didn't keep a copy or I would post it, but you have access, right? Put your money where your mouth is and post a copy of the lab report for everyone else to read.



Any luck finding that lab report, number1copper?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 11:21:54 AM EDT
Though it sounds like an ammo problem, I think they sue everyone who could possibly be liable for the injury. I don't think Glocks pays out on lawsuits too often.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 2:33:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 2:36:07 AM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By fc7mm:
Though it sounds like an ammo problem, I think they sue everyone who could possibly be liable for the injury. I don't think Glocks pays out on lawsuits too often.



Which is asinine.

In November of '04, while working, I stepped on a laptop bag, twisted my ankle, stepped on the leg of a wheeled chair when attempting to regain my footing, spun around, and fell flat on my back.

Freak accident.

Now, it happened at work, so I have no problem allowing my employer's insurance pay for my medical bills.

Should I have sued my employer, or their insurance company?

Should I have perhaps sued Dell, who manufactured the laptop and supplied the bag, or their Taiwanese bag manufacturer?

Should I have sued Nike, for making the shoes I was wearing that day?

Should I have sued the chair manufacturer? Or perhaps the carpet manufacturer, since I landed on carpet?

If I was a litigious asshole, like Officer Whorin' A. Perv, I suppose so.

I dropped the ball. I could have been a multi-millionaire.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 2:09:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
Glock does/did have a problem with unsupported chambers.



have you ever seen the unsupported chamber on a glock, how about another gun like say a 1911, have you seen what that looks like? to say that glock has an unsupported chamber is ignorant, where the ramp is there is material missing in all semi auto's some have more some have less, if you get a over charged round they will all bulge there, now glock does have a more generous area to provide more reliable feeding, it's no suprise that there is talk about over charged rounds and making pistols crack when you put the 40 cal pistols with cops, I have friends that are cops and knowing their buddies its no suprise that they hurt themselves or even shoot themselves, my friends brother is a cop and he has rechambered the same round for over a year before I said something to him, it was a 40golddot and it was alot shorter than the rest of the rounds in the mag, that would have been a over pressure and the gun would be blamed which is a glock
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 11:10:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 11:13:02 PM EDT by Mr45auto]

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
Glock does/did have a problem with unsupported chambers.



have you ever seen the unsupported chamber on a glock, how about another gun like say a 1911, have you seen what that looks like? to say that glock has an unsupported chamber is ignorant, where the ramp is there is material missing in all semi auto's some have more some have less, if you get a over charged round they will all bulge there, now glock does have a more generous area to provide more reliable feeding, it's no suprise that there is talk about over charged rounds and making pistols crack when you put the 40 cal pistols with cops, I have friends that are cops and knowing their buddies its no suprise that they hurt themselves or even shoot themselves, my friends brother is a cop and he has rechambered the same round for over a year before I said something to him, it was a 40golddot and it was alot shorter than the rest of the rounds in the mag, that would have been a over pressure and the gun would be blamed which is a glock




I havent looked back at this thread in awhile but today on the old "my active topics button" I decided to click and have a looksee.

Jeezus F*cking christ. Yeah I've seen it, hell my G22 Kboomed on the 52nd shot I fired from an NIB fracking pistol. None of my 1911s has ever had a case rupture.
I guess those overloaded factory winchester silvertips were just tooo friggen hot for that chamber I experienced firsthand the 6 Oclock failure that commonly destroys glocks. I didnt have the whole friggen barrel split, nor the slide come off but the extractor blew out, the slide stop broke off, the trigger and frame cracked. AND IT HURT!

I dont mean to get so pissy but it gets irritating when you have to answer the same thing 50million times over and over again. I wish I never bought that damned pistol and wish I didnt have the experience. It was in July/Aug of 1992, my first and last glock.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top