I may just sell my Glock 21...


PDA






Tropical Z
March 14, 2004, 12:44 PM
as i dont like owning guns that MAY have "issues".This Glock kaboom issue was all well and good as long as it was the .40S&W that was involved.When i was clued in that the .45acp was just as likely to blow do to an unsupported chamber it made me put my 21 in the safe where its sat ever since.I dont reload and probably never will,but it seems to me a shame to get rid of a gun i like due to a "maybe" that might never happen.Mistakes do occur on modern fast moving assembly lines and if theres a double charged load sitting out there im sure it will find its way into my hands.Unfortunately,most of my guns would probably disintegrate under the same stress.I just worry more about that unsupported 21 chamber.Life is hard sometimes.

If you enjoyed reading about "I may just sell my Glock 21..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kjay
March 14, 2004, 01:39 PM
Well you would think that with all the Glocks out there you here a whole lot more about KaBooms and exploding pistols (you could follow the trail of trial lawyers). I don't think much of this particular "problem." Keep your 21 and enjoy.

railroader
March 14, 2004, 01:44 PM
The 45acp round operates at probably the lowest pressure of any round glocks shoot. If you are shooting factory ammo I wouldn't sweat it. As for double charge, you don't want to shoot those out of any handgun. Mark

TBeck
March 14, 2004, 03:53 PM
It's a remote chance that it will happen. Real, but remote. Instead of taking a $200 beating on selling the gun, buy an aftermarket barrel with a fully supported chamber and keep shooting it.

Whit
March 14, 2004, 03:58 PM
Tropical Z,
You said that you don't reload and probably never will. As long as you're shooting FMJ, you couldn't be any safer. As far as I'm concerned, I take the Glock KB issue, the SIG rust issue, HK firing pin issue, Beretta slide breaking your teeth issue, and whatever else with a grain of salt, sure there are some instances of them all happening, however I think alot of it is internet fokelore. i.e. a buddies, cousins, uncles, old Cell block buddy had it happen to him, kind of story. I'd keep, and enjoy, the Glock 21 as I have kept all my other ticking timebomb SIGs, HK's, Beretta's, and Glocks. Take Care. .....Whit

GunNut
March 14, 2004, 04:31 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean about not being sure about your Glock 21.

Listening to the radio yesterday, there was a report that the Portland, OR. police chief was having ALL Glock .45's turned in. They will be switching to 9mm's.

Steve

RatFink
March 14, 2004, 04:55 PM
Tom Gresham mentioned that today, he said they have had two KB's in their dept.

jc2
March 14, 2004, 05:08 PM
Here you go, Kjay -
03-13-04
PORTLAND - Portland Police Chief Derrick Foxworth has ordered a recall of .45-caliber Glock Model 21 firearms, weapons carried by 230 Portland officers.

His order comes after two of the guns exploded in the hands of two separate officers during training this month. Neither of the officers was seriously injured.

"We don't want a reoccurrence of this happening again," Foxworth said. "It's the prudent thing to do."

The Portland Police Bureau at first thought the problem was caused by an ammunition malfunction. After the second explosion, the bureau's training division did further analysis and determined the explosions may have been caused by a defect in the weapon or a design problem.

Police will switch to 9 mm handguns. They are negotiating with officials at Georgia-based Glock to replace the .45-caliber weapons with 9 mm handguns at no cost.

Because the .45-caliber Glock is popular among law enforcement, the Portland police training officers sent a teletype to agencies nationwide. They heard back from several, including agencies in Florida and Texas, that had similar problems.
I'm like you Tropical Z--if it says Glock on the side, I just don't trust it unless its a 17.

cratz2
March 14, 2004, 07:20 PM
Edit... never mind... :uhoh:

HSMITH
March 14, 2004, 07:46 PM
MILLIONS of rounds downrange every single year through Glocks, and there are probably as many 40's as there are 9mm's now, and we hear of a few KB's. Big deal. 1911's KB too under the same circumstances unless using a ramped barrel, so does everything else. I've seen it with my own two eyes. Want pictures? I have some brass out of a lot purchased on eBay that will illustrate very well what happens when a 1911 is pushed to hard. It isn't necessarily the fault of the gun, and to assume otherwise because of the stampings on it is asinine.

Glock KB's such as the Portland reports are more believable since they are from a uniformed and structured source. 99% of the rest are 'my sister has a cousin that knows a guy married to her cousin that knows the guy' crap that no-one can trust.

I submit that anything else used in the same numbers as the Glock pistols are by an equally 'non-gun type' would see a similar rate of failure. Glocks are the model T of the gun world right now and there are far more used than most of us realize. They are also more likely to be used by less-than-experts than others as well.

I trust the Glocks in my array of guns, and don't worry about it AT ALL. If you are so nervous about it sell them to guys like me at a nice price and bail out to whatever it is that you think is safer to shoot. Good luck with whatever you choose.

Dave T
March 14, 2004, 09:16 PM
If you are concerned and aftermarket barrel (with cut rifling) solves the problem.

M2HMGHB
March 15, 2004, 12:30 AM
There is a recall for 45 Long Colt ammunition from several lots, and Federal was the ammunition that was used. Bad lot maybe?

Eddited to add from Glocktalk's Coptalk forum:

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228994

Latest from the NLETS wire - G21 and Fed ammo
Sent 3/4

Request National Broadcast

Per PPB training, please read and dissiminate the following national teletype:
*****SAFETY INFORMATION*****

Portland Police Bureau advises all law enforcement agencies of two incidents of catastrophic failure during firearms training. Both incidents involved Glock Model 21 (45) and Federal 230 Hi-Shok practice ammunition. The failure is described as follows:

Both officers stated no noticeable differences upon firing. Both handguns has casings expand and failed to extract. The gases escaped by blowing a hole through the side of the caseing (sic) tearing away the bottom half of the barrel at the locking lugs, bending them downward at approximately 30 degree angle. The gases continued throught (sic) the trigger housing and magazine well, destroying both components completely. Additionally the upper was separated from the lower, blowing each upper several feet forward of the firing position. Both officers suffered only minor injuries from shrapnel type debris. PPB is temporarily suspending all use of Federal 230 practice ammo pending investigation.

Any agencies with like incidents please contact Sgt. Mike Lee at Portland Police Bureau training 503-823-0820 or 793-9389.

cratz2
March 15, 2004, 09:36 AM
That's similar to what I posted before I edited it... They've (Portland) assumably not had problems worth mentioning over the past few years, now they have two failures in one month... Though this is far from a test group, it seems like something other than the guns are to blame... Maybe the guns are partially to blame, but if I own ten samples of a particular gun and I fire each gun 500 times with three kinds of ammo over the course of 5 years (25,000 rounds) with zero failures of any kind, then all of a sudden, two of them fail to feed or fail to extract on the same day, it would seem to reason to first completely rule out factors other than the guns as they have proven themselves to be 100% reliable other than on this day.

On the other hand, if you have other guns to carry (or can easily afford to buy others) it might be prudent to shelve those 10 guns while you do your research.

On the topic of Glock kabooms, can anyone give a verified account of a G17 or G19 kabooming with factory copper ammo?

Joe D
March 15, 2004, 10:05 AM
We do need to remain sober about this kaboom issue and Glocks. I have personally worked on Glock 17s and 22s with over 200,000 rounds through them. The indoor range in Georgia that I used has numerous Glocks in their rental fleet. Collectively there has been well over 2,000,000 rounds fired through them. These rental guns do not get cleaned as often as they should either. There has not been one single instance of a kaboom. 80% of the rounds fired through them are reloads from Atlanta Arms.
The degree of failure described in the report does not sound like a gun problem, but an ammo problem. Not too many guns can withstand a double charge. I shoot .45 brass untill it splits.
Factory ammo can be defective. I personally saw a fully engraved 8 3/8" S&W model 29 blown up with Remington 240 gr factory ammo in 1977. The top half of the cylinder was blown off and the top strap peeled back.

Sean Smith
March 15, 2004, 11:29 AM
as i dont like owning guns that MAY have "issues".This Glock kaboom issue was all well and good as long as it was the .40S&W that was involved.When i was clued in that the .45acp was just as likely to blow do to an unsupported chamber it made me put my 21 in the safe where its sat ever since.

Minor problem: that's BS. Since it operates at MUCH lower pressures than .40 S&W, a .45 ACP handgun is nowhere near as likely to have a case failure as a simialr .40 S&W firearm. The .45 ACP SAAMI maximum average pessure is 21,000 PSI; for .40 S&W it is 35,000 PSI... a 67% increase in pressure over the .45 ACP. You were anti-clued in.

Incidentally, few if any .45 ACP handguns have much in the way of case support, including 1911s. They don't need it, because the cartridge operates at such low pressures.

if theres a double charged load sitting out there im sure it will find its way into my hands.

... And in that case, the amount of case support won't matter, because your gun is going to be broken regardless. More case support really only helps you in a marginal overpressure situation, where the case could split in an unsupported area if the brass is too weak for the pressures it is loaded to. That's alot more important in a case where you are loading high-pressure cartridges at or beyond SAAMI pressure specs that have relatively weak cases for the pressures loaded, like .40 S&W or .38 Super.

Dean Speir
March 23, 2004, 08:59 PM
Now is definitely not the time to sell your Model 21 Glock, if for no other reason that there may be a glut of them on the market!

More information is coming out of the Portland Police Bureau on a daily basis: http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/ppb.html.

It seems that the bulk of the Model 21-carrying MOS are reluctant to part with their blasters, however. I know I wouldn't want to part with mine!

JohnKSa
March 23, 2004, 09:49 PM
Dean,

It sounds like the fellow's message is implying your website was a major factor in Portland PD's decision that the problem was a design flaw, not an ammo problem. He's sure quoting chapter and verse from your site regarding the chamber support issue.

Boy, that sure muddies the water if it's true--I've thought for some time that the negative publicity that you gave Glocks when they were still being introduced to the country has colored the thinking of the gun community. You know, first impressions and all that.

Sort of like the slide separation issue with Berettas. I doubt that there have been 5 slide separations in the last decade or so--but the gun community will always associate that particular failure with the Beretta pistols because that's the first thing many of them heard about the guns.

Any word on when an independent entity is going to check out the ammo? From what I understand only Portland PD's training dept has looked at it so far.

John

Snowdog
March 23, 2004, 11:07 PM
Now is definitely not the time to sell your Model 21 Glock, if for no other reason that there may be a glut of them on the market!

Looks like I'll be buying a used Glock 21 on the light side of cheap in the months to come. ;)

Badger Arms
March 24, 2004, 12:07 AM
Trop:

If you take a look at the case where it's unsupported, that's the case head, it's solid brass through the case. Don't worry.

Ammo First
March 24, 2004, 12:40 AM
I think your points are valid. Thier is however an even more compelling reason to unload the glock: It always suprises me how little economic patriotism we see in this country, even at this forum which I'm sure has some of the country's most patriotic citizens, you hardly see any and I mean even a tiny bit of consideration for buying American products.This is not some old rust belt 70s propaganda, America's trade deficit, manufacturing base, .economic/political independence is all at stake. I say trade with country's that trade fairly with America and the rest can kiss off. Ever seen the trade deficit with germany? Its Huge. Austria would'nt even let us use their railways for the Iraq war. I wouldn't buy an Austrian or German Gun, Car or a pretzel for that matter. Dump that NAZI POS and go buy an American Gun (or buy from a respectable ally like Italy or Israel, even Any of the old eastern block countries(Czech, poland) Show america 10 times the respect Germany, Austria, France or Belgium currently do.

Tropical Z
March 24, 2004, 11:22 AM
:what:
That was lousy what Austria did to us at the start of the war.Creeps!
Poland is our true friend now!

Dean Speir
March 24, 2004, 12:05 PM
"Chapter and verse," JohnKSa?!?

My, but it's apparent that you and I see things from a different perspective. Or do you actually think that the Glock kB! FAQ v1.28 is the sole source of (fully documented) information about the lack of casehead support? I've thought for some time that the negative publicity that you gave Glocks when they were still being introduced to the country has colored the thinking of the gun community. I guess it's true what one of the original FAQ co-authors, Todd Green, said earlier this month: "I learned long ago that when it comes to online gun forums, everything is Dean's fault."

But your command of history is dubious in the extreme… the very first critical report I published about Glock was in latter 1992, over six years after the pistols were first introduced here, and over five years after I almost single-handedly got them approved for civilian ownership in Suffolk County, NY.

Another "historical note," I'm astounded at the number of catastrophic M9 slide failures that have occurred long after it should not have been an issue… b-a-a-a-a-d maintenance procedures in certain military units, particularly one which was "late to the game!" You perhaps don't recall that it took not one but two Congressional dirrectives before USMC would first adopt and then actually start issuing the M9s, and I suspect that their warehousing of the pistols meant that they had a number of the "first generation" (manufactured and assembled in Italy) Berettas in service long after the rest of those M9s had been flushed through the system, having either been upgraded with the slide-replacement program or the addition of the oversize hammer pivot pin and milling cut in the slide, or taken out of service after a failure.

As for when and what with PPB, as I learn more, I'll publish more… but you need to learn to read it more objectively, I think.

JohnKSa
March 24, 2004, 09:41 PM
Dean,

The following quote is from the Portland Police Officer's message on your site:
In a quest for non-ammunition related causes, someone obviously stumbled upon TGZ's FAQ and the Police Bureau's concern quickly shifted towards a "design flaw" theory.
I said:
It sounds like the fellow's message is implying your website was a major factor in Portland PD's decision that the problem was a design flaw, not an ammo problem.
If you think that's not an objective enough evaluation, I'm not sure what else to say...

As for the history lesson, I'm not arguing with your chronology--but I still think my statement stands. A lot of shooters first heard about Glocks about the same time that they heard about kB!s. I'm not sure why you responded as if that's some sort of an accusation. Obviously, you've made an effort to publicize the "kB! issue." In effect, I just commended you on the effectiveness of your campaign...

WonderNine
March 24, 2004, 09:55 PM
I think shooting is too dangerous to trust plastic. I know I'm in the minority, but I just do not even like the idea of shooting a plastic framed gun. They look ugly and they have no soul.

Tamara
March 24, 2004, 10:49 PM
Odd that my last Beretta 96 had more unsupported case area than my last G23, which in turn had a tighter chamber than my last .40 cal P-226. I really shouldn't examine this stuff for myself. :uhoh:

M58
March 25, 2004, 05:31 AM
John,
I took your post to mean a positive response about Dean.
Not sure about his reaction.

-X-
March 25, 2004, 09:23 AM
Any update on Portland?

I've been carrying a 21 on duty since @ 97-98. I also have a 30. Both have proved perfectly reliable, dependable and tougher than any other gun in the free world. I love my 1911's, but I'll abuse my Glocks and never worry about it. Seems ashame to give up the Glocks for something that seems to be an ammo problem.

MAURICE
March 25, 2004, 09:50 AM
snowdog sayz:

Looks like I'll be buying a used Glock 21 on the light side of cheap in the months to come.

Ayup, and the Tulsa show is next weekend :D

edited for speeling.

BrokenArrow
March 25, 2004, 11:37 AM
Someone mentioned Glock 9x19s and kBs? S&W IDPA Winter Championship, Glock 34, PMC ammo.

So that makes the .380 and .45 GAP Glock's the "safest" now? ;)

Sure looks like the Glock 9s do it less often than the Glock 40/45/357 do? If they do, it's not unreasonable to think other guns may do it less than Glock 40/45/357s for similar reasons, whatever those are?

If Glock has 65% of the police market (more than that around here), then we should here of other guns doing it at a rate of about 1 of them for every 2 - 3 Glocks? Glock seems to have much more of an edge than that though?

I can think of several cases of multiple Glock Kbs w the same PD w factory ammo, and more singular incidents. So where are the matching kB incidents w the other guns? Why are they so much better at hiding them? Why are we so much less likely to hear about them? It's not like there aren't a lot of Glock fans just waiting to find em and post em? Should be a club for em at Glock Talk by now?

If it's all Deans' doing, he is a master up there with Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Jim Jones?

More likely to get a catastrophically fractured slide in a Beretta (and now SIG too) than a Glock, more likely to get a Phase Three malfunction in a Glock 19 than a SIG 226 or S&W 5946... lottsa pieces of falling sky to dodge while ya run for your trusty 1911?

Got to wonder why so much mass hysteria and cognitive dissonance on this particular issue? I'm not going to run and hide from my Glocks (or anything else), but I'm not floating down that river either. Ya know the one - da Nile. ;)

Dean Speir
March 25, 2004, 12:24 PM
JohnKSa… If you think that's not an objective enough evaluation, I'm not sure what else to say... Where I have a problem, given our track-record, is the way you like to characterize certain elements. You think I have an agenda (the use of "campaign" seems dispositive of your belief) and I feel that you have one as well, and our objectives are mutually exclusive.

It was apparent to me from the initial (13 March) news story (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1079183259140830.xml) that whoever was handing up information to the Chief for his public utterances, was at least conversant with TGZ's Glock section… certain language, doncha know? So too did my "PPB mole," as you quoted… and then decided this was "a major factor" in this whole business.

And I categorically reject that… you seem to be building a case that the greater part of the problem is the information presented on my Website, and that without that information, then PPB (and others) would simply go after Federal for the replacement guns and switch ammo suppliers.

The Glock kB! FAQ is what it is… a peer-reviewed, collaborative document discussing a phenomenon that, while not unique to the Glock pistols, is widely associated with the guns. Are Todd, Jay and I responsible for that? Gawd, I hope so… it was the whole purpose of the FAQ: a warning to Glock-owners that there was more to the Glock manual's page 15 advisory regarding "only high quality commercially manufactured ammunition in excellent condition" than just legal-department boilerplate. Glock has always known that there were various problems with their pistols, from the "pencil barrel" to the "cracking frames" with the first .40 S&W pistols which had been hastily adapted from the 9 X 19mm Models 17 and 19, to the dangerous safety conditions which necessitated the temporizing Six-Part Upgrade (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/upgrade-faq.html) while a frame rail problem was quietly addressed, right up to the more recent NYPD Phase 3 malfunctions (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html) and the rear frame slide rail QC/QA issue (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/problems.html).

These are all fully documented and readily verifiable… and rarely if ever acknowledged and openly discussed by Glock. Gaston's ego simply won't allow it, #1, and, #2, it would seriously undermine Glock, Inc.'s carefully crafted image of "Perfection."

Where I determined to get into it was almost a dozen years back when an uninpeachable Glock source quietly disclosed that Glock had identified AA#5 as being involved in a "disproportionately high number" (their words, not mine) of catastrophic failures with their .40 S&W pistols, then limited to the Models 22 and 23. Five-six months went by, and nary a word from Smyrna while the Models 22, 23 and the newly introduced Model 24 continued to experience kB!s. Glock, Inc.'s corporate counsel and later V.P. Paul Jannuzzo's response was along the lines of "Hey!, we tell them to use 'only high quality commercially manufactured ammunition in excellent condition.' We've done our part!"

It took Frank James and myself less than a week to track down the cause of the problem (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/kb-notes.html#A1) (for which H&K was extremely appreciative as seven of their USPs with significantly fuller chamber support had also experienced catastrophic failure which H&K was at a loss to explain).

And the only "official word" from anyone ever, was an addendum to the Accurate Arms reloading manual with a specific warning about, not Glocks, but "…pistols currently available to shooters (which) may not provide complete support to the case when a cartridge is chambered."

Is all this "negative publicity?" Only if you are such an adherent to the Gospel According To Gaston, that you cannot brook any sort of discouraging word.

In the intervening seven years since the publication of the original kB! FAQ, I have maintained it and updated it as new information (on either side of the issue) becomes available, and as discussions on various Internet firearms forums reveal that certain language needs revision in order to promote greater clarity. There are, however, a number of Morons with Modems… one of your old running mates from Kentucky on another forum, for instance… for whom no language can be clear enough. Against an obstacle such as that, I am powerless.

Accepting your posts here at face value, John (and M58's reading as well), you seem a lot more open now to a broader view of the issues, despite your not-so-subtle language choices which reveal your belief that there would be far less problems with Glock pistols if TGZ's Glock pages disappear into the Ho-Zone.

That, I think, is called shooting the messenger. May I without offense ask what about, if not shooting then at least criticizing, the messenger who utterly fails to deliver an important message?

JohnKSa
March 25, 2004, 09:04 PM
Dean,

I don't for a moment believe Glock's pistols are perfect, nor do I believe that H&K doesn't compromise. ;)

Given that you have devoted quite a bit of effort to publicizing the kB! issue, it seems a bit surprising that you would be so defensive when it is pointed out that information from your website caused the Portland "Police Bureau's concern to quickly shift towards a "design flaw" theory." Especially since the quote I used came off your own website.

Ok, the main thing I'm getting around to is that until an independent party gets in on the gun&ammo examination, it's a bit premature to use this incident as further fuel to the kB! fire. Especially since it's not clear just how much the information on your website has influenced the thinking of the PPB. Remember, the PPB, is at the moment the only entity that has examined both the guns and the ammunition.

I think you'll agree that things are getting a bit circular here. The PPB "mole" states that PPB shifted their concern to the design flaw theory after seeing your website and you, in turn have used their conclusions to bolster the design flaw theory.

BTW, you'll note that I'm not quoting from Glock's press release. That's because I consider them to be as about objective as the PPB right now. They said pretty much what they should say (or at least exactly what was expected), given that PPB won't allow them to look at anything but pictures.

John

goalie
March 25, 2004, 09:58 PM
Odd that my last Beretta 96 had more unsupported case area than my last G23, which in turn had a tighter chamber than my last .40 cal P-226. I really shouldn't examine this stuff for myself

Interestingly, the only K-Booms I have seen with my own eyes happened to a Beretta while in the Marines (a privately owned weapon at the Camp lejeune range in 92) and a Sig .45, also a civilian weapon that, knowing the owner, was abused beyond belief and likely happened with very hot handloads. Oh well, I only have 9mm Glocks anyhow. :D

Tamara
March 25, 2004, 10:03 PM
So where are the matching kB incidents w the other guns? Why are they so much better at hiding them? Why are we so much less likely to hear about them?

Statistically speaking, one HK Mk23 kB! should be worth about 12,378 .40 cal Glock kB!'s, right? ;)

Still waiting to hear about the 12,377th Glock .40 kB!, which makes the Mk23 statistically more fragile. :D

"yote"
March 25, 2004, 10:14 PM
ANY gun can go Kb with a bad batch of factory or handloaded ammo!!!
Think about it, we take that risk EVERY TIME we pull the trigger!!!
75%+ of all firearm failures can be traced to bad ammo. Nuff said.

My Glock 30 has close to 15,000 rnds through it and no Kb.

Tamara
March 25, 2004, 10:26 PM
Think about it, we take that risk EVERY TIME we pull the trigger!!!

Sshhh!! Don't tell folks that! They're sure that if they buy the right Magic Gun Brand a double charge or bullet setback won't hurt them! :uhoh:

BrokenArrow
March 25, 2004, 11:42 PM
Nice try Tamara, but I was talkin' 'bout LE guns and factory ammo, not the whole shebang of kaBooms. ;)

LE ammo sales show the 40 and 9 still lead the 45 and 357SIG by quite a bit. So where are all the Glock 9 kBs? Should be pretty close? Why are they not even remotely close to the Glock 40/45 kBs?

Glock claims about 65 - 75% of the market? So they outnumber everybody else by about 3 to 1? That's still about 4,000 PDs w other guns.

So where are all the PDs w kBs w factory ammo in other guns? Glock kBs in 40/45 lead the Glock 9s by quite a bit in LE w factory ammo, the Glocks in 40/45 lead the others by quite a bit too, by a lot more than the 12,000 PD to 4,000 PD edge would indicate?

Portland, Amarillo, Warren County... multiple kBs w factory ammo. How many for any PD w any other .40/45? With Glock 9s?

Rack 'em and stack 'em, we can add 'em up and see how they compare.

The Glock 40/45s do seem to be doing it out of proportion to their numbers compared to A) Glock 9s and B) other 40/45s - in LE - w factory ammo?

I know all guns can and have done it. Was next to a Ruger GP100 that blew a cylinder w factory Federal ammo once. Only fatality I know of from a .40 kB is from a Ruger .40... hmmmm... ;)

Tamara
March 26, 2004, 07:35 AM
So where are all the Glock 9 kBs?

Y'know, 9mm is just not an easy caliber to blow a gun up with. It's hard to overcharge that teeny case (of course, factory ammo is never overcharged. Only silly handloaders do that :D ), bullet setback tends not to be as likely in smaller calibers, and chamber walls tend to be thicker meaning that even if a case does let go, odds are you're going to wind up with the magazine guts on the floor as the worst thing that happens. Oh, and you might launch an extractor. .40, on the other hand, (and .45) are starting to get into territory that offers great possibility for reloading screwups, and seem more susceptible to setback (due to the larger diameter? Heavier bullet? I don't know.)

If you really want to blow a handgun to flinders though, you need a large revolver cartridge. :cool:

Lobotomy Boy
March 26, 2004, 08:42 AM
Back in the 1970s I had an old model Super Blackhawk that KBd before I got it. It happened to my uncle, the original owner, and it was rather spectacular. He just filled that cylinder with lead and we used the gun for years-decades, actually--as a five-shot. What can I say--we were a bunch of simple, hairy woodsrunners.

I wish I had that gun today. I'd send it back to Ruger for the safety upgrade and a new cylinder and have a pretty nice old gun.

BrokenArrow
March 26, 2004, 11:04 AM
... wanna blow a shotgun bbl to banana peels, just trip in the snow, then shoot the next rabbit the dogs jump.

No, it wasn't me. ;)

I did have a "kB" w a 62 pound draw weight Browning Nomad recurve hunting bow. Was at full draw, released the arrow, and my arm felt like I had touched a screwdriver to a spark plug ... the factory Dacron string had blown all 18 strands! No damage to me or the bow, and I even bagged a trophy class window air conditioner. :D

Roland-G23
March 26, 2004, 08:04 PM
Hey Dean, thanks for quoting me on your website.

While I fully support your 1st, 2nd, and other Amendment rights, your soapbox rants about the Glock firearms are somewhat of a disservice to gun enthusiasts.

My "MYTH..." quote was meant to imply that from my source, the Glock design played NO part in the catastrophic failure of the PPB's G21s. While it still remains to be determined what was the actual cause of the kB!'s because of the PPB's refusal to allow the manufacturer to inspect/test the weapons involved, I seriously doubt a "traditional" kB! event would have caused the type of failure described by all parties.

Tamara
March 26, 2004, 08:38 PM
I was kinda wondering how much (and of what flavor) Kool-Aid one has to drink to believe that a simple case failure of an otherwise SAAMI-spec load (allegedly caused by an unmeasured, unspecified, and unquantified lack of case support) can cause a proof-tested barrel to split longitudinally. Must be pretty flavorful stuff; maybe they have ads for it at TGZ. :scrutiny:

TBeck
March 26, 2004, 09:29 PM
I was kinda wondering how much (and of what flavor) Kool-Aid one has to drink to believe that a simple case failure of an otherwise SAAMI-spec load (allegedly caused by an unmeasured, unspecified, and unquantified lack of case support) can cause a proof-tested barrel to split longitudinally.

That was a different G21 kaBoom, that the shooter admits could have resulted from a double charge behind one of his own cast, semiwadcutter reloads. The PPB Glcoks did not split the barrel, but did destroy the bottom of the barrel at the locking lugs, according to the armorer. I don't think any oictures have been posted of the PPB guns at this time.

Lobotomy Boy
March 26, 2004, 09:41 PM
Regarding the flavor of Kool Aid, I think grape is preferred.

Roland-G23
March 26, 2004, 09:53 PM
That was a different G21 kaBoom, that the shooter admits could have resulted from a double charge behind one of his own cast, semiwadcutter reloads. The PPB Glcoks did not split the barrel, but did destroy the bottom of the barrel at the locking lugs, according to the armorer. I don't think any oictures have been posted of the PPB guns at this time.

The person that described the failures to me had personally inspected both guns, and said that both barrels were split longitudinally like they had been cut with a hacksaw.

There is no way a 21,000 CUP round is going to do that to a barrel, I don't care how little case support it supposedly has UNLESS there are some serious metallurgical flaws or DEFECTIVE ammunition.

Tecolote
March 26, 2004, 10:30 PM
24 March 2004

GLOCK, Inc. has been made aware of two incidents involving the Portland Police Department in which two GLOCK Model 21 pistols were damaged while allegedly using Federal brand Classic HI-SHOK practice ammunition.

This will respond to an article dated March 4, 2004 in The Oregonian newspaper wherein Chief of Police, Derrick Foxworth, was quoted as stating “the bureau’s training division did further analysis and determined the explosions may have been caused by a defect in the weapon or a design problem.” GLOCK, Inc. absolutely disagrees with this unfounded conclusion and stands behind its Model 21 pistol, which has had an excellent service record since its introduction in 1991. It should be noted that the Portland Police Department has used the GLOCK Model 21 pistol for the past 12 years.

We have repeatedly asked the Portland Police Department to allow us to do technical examinations of the pistols and ammunition. As of the date of this Release, our requests have been denied. The Portland Police Department has only provided us with pictures of the damaged firearms. A review of these pictures appears to indicate a classic over-pressured ammunition problem.

Additionally, we contacted the Portland Police Department to schedule a meeting at our headquarters in Smyrna, Georgia at our expense to examine the pistols and ammunition. Thus far, the Portland Police Department has not agreed to this meeting.

Our products are manufactured under the highest standards and are submitted to rigorous testing before leaving the factory. GLOCK pistols have been adopted by thousands of military and law enforcement agencies throughout the world because of its excellent safety and reliability record.

For further information, please contact us at 770-432-1202.

GLOCK, Inc.


Posted by DaleGribble over at GlockTalk

mindcrime
March 27, 2004, 11:38 PM
As part of a full-time police range staff, I have helped qualify 2400 plus officers every quarter. We issue 9mm 124+p and 45 200+p gold dot ammo and authorize most high quality firearms. Glocks account for roughly 65% of the guns used. This 45 ammo is very effective but very hard on guns. We fire about 1.4 million rounds per year. The Glock 21's have proven to be the most reliable with this ammo. We have had one KB- an HK USP. We have had numerous 1911's (Colt, Kimber and Para) break. Slides, frames, springs. S&W 45's hold up pretty well but some broken trigger bars and spring issues. Numerous Sig 220's have broken or fractured frames. The 21 has proven to be the strongest design we authorize. We are switching to standard velocity 45 230 grn gold dot because of the difficulty of the other designs handling the +p.
I would not be worried by the safety of the design in the least.

Dean Speir
March 28, 2004, 01:48 AM
Roland-G23 shows up again: Hey Dean, thanks for quoting me on your website.

While I fully support your 1st, 2nd, and other Amendment rights, your soapbox rants about the Glock firearms are somewhat of a disservice to gun enthusiasts.

My "MYTH..." quote was meant to imply that from my source, the Glock design played NO part in the catastrophic failure of the PPB's G21s. While it still remains to be determined what was the actual cause of the kB!'s because of the PPB's refusal to allow the manufacturer to inspect/test the weapons involved, I seriously doubt a "traditional" kB! event would have caused the type of failure described by all parties.

I can't remember the last time I drank Kool-Aid, and your assertion by that statement reflects poorly on your objectivity, and more on your old age and crotchety-ness. You should seek a guest-star appearance in a Scooby Doo movie….
You're quite welcome.

Au contraire, dear Roland… that's not a rant, it's a straight out recitation of the facts as they have been reported by others, and quotes from people such as yo'self. How is that "a disservice to gun enthusiasts?"

I know, as do most others who can read, what you stated… I don't think there was any "imply" about it. You straight out declaimed that your source felt, based on personal observation, that it was ammunition-related. (I'm at a loss, however, to understand what you mean by a "'traditional' kB! event." You seem to be acknowledging that there are in fact catastrophic Glock failures which are not ammo-related.)

The "Kool Aid" appelation is not mine, but that of TFL Moderator Rosco Benson… it's a pretty funny, and appropriate, term for those for whom Glock can not only do no wrong, but whose emotional lives are inextricably intertwined with polymer and Tenifer.

While I freely acknowledge my advancing years and general disgruntlement (not with Glock pistols but with the policies of Glock, Inc.) I'll leave the Scooby Doo stuff to you as it's clearly something with which you're more comfortable… I fear it's far too advanced for me. As for the Glock, Inc. "Press Release" which Tecolote cut 'n' pasted from the G.S.S.F. site (http://www.gssfonline.com/hot_topics/pressrelease.htm), aside from it's being replete with factual errors, it's the predictable "Official Glock Response #1: It's the ammo, stupid!" (#2 is, of course, "The shooter is limp-wristing.")

And JohnKSa, I need to ask you about your statement: The PPB "mole" states that PPB shifted their concern to the design flaw theory after seeing your website and you, in turn have used their conclusions to bolster the design flaw theory. Do you really think that what you characterize as "the design flaw theory," is a devise of mine?

Sure, I get the (dis)credit for the bulk of the darker side of the Glock story, because I've put in the time investigating this, verifying it and reporting on it… most of what I've published over the past almost 14 years is based on independent laboratory reports and expert court testimony.

Marshall
March 28, 2004, 02:13 AM
Ayup, and the Tulsa show is next weekend

I'll be there!

:D

dww
March 28, 2004, 03:10 AM
Me no scare!

dww

mr_walter2@yahoo.com

JohnKSa
March 28, 2004, 07:50 PM
Do you really think that what you characterize as "the design flaw
theory," is a devise of mine?
How is that relevant?

According to the message from the PPB "mole" that you posted on your website, the PPB shifted to the design flaw theory as a result of looking at your website.

Whoever's design flaw theory it is, they read it on YOUR site.

Now, you, in turn are using their conclusion (which the PPB "mole says was influenced by your site) to bolster the design flaw theory.

If that's not circular, I don't know what is.

Until there is some sort of independent examination of the guns and ammunition involved in this incident, it's premature for ANYONE to use this incident to support any theory.

BTW, I'm interested to hear your response to this statement posted on this thread.

How could a simple case failure of an otherwise SAAMI-spec load ... cause a proof-tested barrel to split longitudinally.

Roland-G23
March 28, 2004, 08:05 PM
Dean, your disservice to gun enthusiasts is your polemic commentary about Glocks and the lack of support at the case head in some models. Your kB! "MYTH" is that people seem to believe that ALL glocks are going to blow up at some point, and thats just not true. Any firearm can go boom (the wrong kind of boom) if the ammo used is faulty in some aspect.

Do I believe your kB! FAQ? No. Do I acknowledge that there is less case support in some of their models? Yes. At some point in time, under the right conditions, could it possibly kB!? Maybe. Maybe not.

The point is many unexperienced firearms enthusiasts considering a Glock purchase might stumble across your little corner of cyberspace, and accept your FAQ as gospel.

I believe a "traditional" kB! event is mostly ammo related and not manufacturer specific, whether it be a defective factory load (i.e. double-charge, setback, faulty brass), defective handload (wildcatting, soft lead, double-charge, setback, brass failure), or maintenance issue (too weak a recoil spring, carbon and other crud buildup) that causes the slide to not return to battery).

You appear to take the stance that Glock's are more prevalent to this, yet the only guns I have personally seen blow up are a 1911 (double-charge handload), a couple of M16s (barrel obstruction and bullet setback), and a M60 (don't know what caused this one). I have a friend that had a Glock 22 kB! with Speer factory ammo, which Glock replaced at Speer's expense.

I use an aftermarket barrel in my Glock 35 for USPSA competition, mostly because I want my brass to last because I reload. I know many shooters that reload .40 for their Glocks, and use the factory barrel without problems. I think its entirely safe to reload for the Glock .40s, if you maintain quality control, and don't push the pressure envelope. I've yet to produce a .40 reload that exceeds 950fps. I even use lead at times in all my Glocks (Lasercast or Meister Bullets).

I've heard of one instance where a PD had a Glock 21 kb! where the officer claimed he was firing factory Winchester ammunition, and sent the shell cases along with the Glock 21 back to Glock. Turns out he had actually been shooting his own reloads (against his department policy) when the kB! happened. Forensic analysis of the firearm by Winchester and Glock revealed that no Winchester ammunition had been fired through that weapon, and the shell cases did not bear the unique Glock striker marks on the primer.

While the jury is still out on what caused the PPB's Glock 21s to kB!, I still believe the problem is ammo related until I hear or read otherwise.

Ammo First
March 29, 2004, 04:27 AM
Buy German/Austrian products whenever you can. They are Americas best AND most loyal ally.

Roland-G23
March 29, 2004, 09:19 AM
Oh, so this is what its all about?

Buy German/Austrian products whenever you can. They are Americas best AND most loyal ally.

Grump
March 29, 2004, 09:05 PM
Roland G-23:

The PBB failure rate of 2 out of 230 or so pistols approaches 1 percent _for that population_ with the damaged barrel components, _if the "mole" report is accurate._

I don't believe anyone could cover up a 1 percent failure rate of 9x19 Glocks in a big population like the NYPD. How many do THEY have?

All of our suspicions are almost equally suspect until we have more definitive data, including some independent testing of a LARGE sample of that ammo. And was the second failure at PBB with a different lot of the practice ammo? I'm thinking manufacturing statistics here, and the possiblity that more than one lot of ammo is implicated, _if_ it turns out the be the ammo.

Of course, we've never seen ammo recalls that affect more than one lot from that maker, right?:neener: Don't make me laugh.

Then there's the metals problem. The well-doumented M1A kB! story which Dean broke 26 or so months ago turned out to be bad steel which survived a few thousand repetitions of PERFECTLY SAFE AMMO.

So, my conclusion is that it could be either, or even both, ammo and/or steel problems. Then there is that "out of battery" legend that I can't get anyone to quantify. When _should_ the disconnector disconnect, and what role does dwell time play in safe functioning of the Glock designs?

I compared the barrel movement before the start of unlocking between a G22 and a SIG P226. IIRC, the SIG had about twice as much barrel/slide movement before the barrel engaged the unlocking surface. Both pistols disconnected and would not bounce a "chambered" pencil _before_ the barrels had unlocked. But the Glock later turned out to have peening on the firing pin block, indicating some uncoordination between those two safety functions. That, and the trigger bar and the striker, have since been replaced.

I'm no mechanical engineer, but I know enough science and statistics to design and run a valid study. Which Feds do I hit up for a nice one-year grant?

jc2
March 29, 2004, 09:59 PM
There is no way a 21,000 CUP round is going to do that to a barrel, I don't care how little case support it supposedly has UNLESS there are some serious metallurgical flaws or DEFECTIVE ammunition.
How about just a little too much tennifer process, and it crossed the rather narrow threshold from hard to brittle?

--Just as likely as defective ammunition.

--Partcularly if both Glocks were from the same lot.

Tamara
March 29, 2004, 10:17 PM
How about just a little too much tennifer process, and it crossed the rather narrow threshold from hard to brittle?

That may be the most plausible explanation I'd heard for the unusual numbers of .40 & .45 Glocks among the ranks of the Order of the Ruptured Chamber. I still think that worrying about it is, in the world of risk assessment, on par with sewing a lightning rod into the top of one's baseball cap, but it would be nice if there was a way to interdict the potentially fudged lots of barrels at the source or, failing that, to identify potentially at-risk S/N ranges after an incident or two.

There's definitely an awful synergy at work when the two poles (one claiming that "The sky is falling!" and the other claiming "Perfection!") are so convinced of the rightness of their cause. ;)

jc2
March 29, 2004, 10:27 PM
I've sort of enjoyed to on-going Kimber and MIM Parts exchange (though I haven't been following too closely)--an honst (relatively) discussion of a problem without anybody falling on their sword to defend the honor (and perfection) of Kimber.

JohnKSa
March 29, 2004, 11:35 PM
How about just a little too much tennifer process
It's always possible that the barrels could have been improperly hardened--that happens from time to time with most manufacturers. However, the tenifer process is only a surface treatment and can't weaken or embrittle the underlying steel. The underlying steel has properties that result from the alloy used and the tempering process. Surface treatments like case hardening and tenifer penetrate into the metal only a few thousandths--not nearly deeply enough to affect anything but the surface.

Right now it's impossible to say whether it was the guns or the ammo... There is one thing in favor of it being an ammo issue. Individual guns are tested with proof loads. Individual rounds of ammo, of course, can't be tested--except by the user, I suppose... :uhoh:

jc2
March 30, 2004, 07:04 AM
You can't write tenifer treatment off quite that easily. It is a chemical process that actually penetrates metal--a little too much could be a bad thing. It doesn't take much to move from hard to brittle. Once a crack starts--or any other weakness--(and particularly in the chamber), it's kind of hard to say what will happen (especially if coupled with thin chamber walls). Glock, like just about any other manufacturer, is capable of manufacturing errors. The tenifer process is as likely a culprit as any other (particularly given the randomness consistency over multiple generations of catastrophic chamber failures in Glocks). I doubt if we'll ever know for sure--even if Glock did (or does) know what causes the problem (or problems), they'd would never publish it given their history.

Tamara
March 30, 2004, 07:36 AM
However, the tenifer process is only a surface treatment and can't weaken or embrittle the underlying steel.

The theory here is (don't forget that the inside of the chamber is exposed to the same process) that an overlong dunk in the Tenifer tank results in hardening that could "meet in the middle" on the relatively thinner-walled "inch" Glocks (.357,.40,.45), leaving this part hardened (and thus more brittle) all the way through. If you have a Glock with this theoretical problem and you get a case failure/overcharge/bullet setback/whatever, then you would wind up with the classic longitudinally split chamber, rather than the more normal pile of mag guts at your feet.

One other thing causing me to lean more towards a manufacturing defect rather than a design one is that the .40 cal Glocks were capable of passing the FBI's obstructed bore test, which would be impossible if some of the more dramatic claims of design defects were true.

Marko Kloos
March 30, 2004, 07:41 AM
That would be an explanation if you discount the fact that the Tenifer treatment only penetrates the steel to a depth of a few microns.

Tenifer is essentially a surface case-hardening process, right? Correct me if I am wrong, but you can't case-harden a piece of steel all the way through.

But I'm not a metallurgist...although I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently.

Tamara
March 30, 2004, 07:46 AM
That would be an explanation if you discount the fact that the Tenifer treatment only penetrates the steel to a depth of a few microns.

Depth of penetration of the case-harden... er, Tenifer process is based on time of exposure.

Marko Kloos
March 30, 2004, 07:50 AM
Well, if exposure determines the depth of the case-hardening, and the regular depth of Tenifer treatment after a minute or two of exposure is a few microns at best, some engineer in Deutsch-Wagram would have to fall asleep at the switch, or leave a bunch of Glock parts in the tank during lunch break.

"Ze Bratwurst and beer were wunderbar, nicht wahr? Now where did I....Gott im Himmel! Ze slides and barrels!" (Engineer lifts the super-hardened Glock parts out of the Tenifer bubble bath) "Thank Gott ze chief engineer is on vacation zis week."

Tamara
March 30, 2004, 08:01 AM
Well, if exposure determines the depth of the case-hardening, and the regular depth of Tenifer treatment after a minute or two of exposure is a few microns at best,

How do you know that the regular exposure time is "a minute or two"? From what I'm given to understand, it's a bit more time sensitive than you'd think.

BrokenArrow
March 30, 2004, 01:53 PM
IF they mess up the Tenifer, a crack/cracks could start where it's too brittle, even if it's only a few microns thick, and spread from there?

I've been told that's why Tenifer, even when done right, is not used on a variety of other smaller parts, or parts stressed different ways, usually just slides and bbls.

Are we sure Glock proofs _all_ their bbls? Is that pentagon on the bbl a proof mark? What proof house? In house?

I've talked to other "industry" people (including some who worked for Glock in the past) I trust who have said Glock does not. If you specify that in your contract, Glock will give you a certificate that says they all have been proofed, trust us.

Could be gun design, ammo, processes, or a combo of them all.

Certainly some randomness in Glocks (OK, all guns; Glocks get noticed more).

As of Oct 98, 88 NYPD G19s Phase Three malfed (about 1 in 300), more after that. IIRC, in 02 Glock was modifying about 24,000 NYPD Glocks. They modiy any others? Offer too? A local officer's G19 did it in 02; he was surprised to find out it wasn't as rare a fluke as he thought.

How about the slide peening from where the locking block hits it? I've seen G32s not do it at all, and G19s that have fired nothing but std pressure ammo do it a lot. Some G22s don't do it at all, some a little, and some look they have been smacked w a chisel. I've owned consecutively numbered Glock 17s; one did it, the other did not.

The FBI Glocks passed the FBI's obstructed bore test, but that was with some pretty low pressure .40 ammo to start with (low vel 165g at 980 fps).
Two of the 6 guns the FBI tested, both G22s, broke trigger bars under 20K rounds too.

The Beretta .40s passed the INS obstructed bore test w higher pressure ammo, 155g at 1140 fps, and some of them have blown bbls. The M9 passed the M9 and M10 trials, look what happened and is still happening?

Sure seems like the occasional messed up factory round of 9mm ammo, std, +P, +P+, mil-spec, whatever doesn't cause as much damage in Glocks (or any other gun) as often as the 40/45/357 do.

I've seen and/or held in my hands a lot more blown (w factory ammo) High Powers, Walthers, USPs, Kel-Tecs, Berettas, SIGs, and Rugers in .40/357 than I have 9s, and I have seen a lot more 9s shot for a lot longer in more places.

Relatively stronger case to start with, as well as usually thicker chamber walls and/or more case support than the 40/45/357 models for most of them?

IF Glock 40/45/357s can be closer to the point where it gets "interesting" more often than the Glock 9s, why can't the Glock be closer to that point than some other guns for similar reasons? Not hard to accept that a USP 40/45/357 bbl, with it's thicker chamber walls and waaaay more case support might have a larger margin for error (yes, I know they have blown too)?

Still plenty of room to argue that makes the Glock different, not defective.

Viva la difference?

Or Lady Luck: la belle dame sans merci? ;)

JohnKSa
March 30, 2004, 10:52 PM
Depth of penetration of the case-harden... er, Tenifer process is based on time of exposure.
How does that work? My understanding of the various surface hardening techniques is that they convert the outer layer of the material to a harder alloy/compound by a chemical process. There is no significant penetration because you're really only converting the layer of metal that comes in contact with the chemicals that cause the hardening.

I'm not really arguing about this because my metallurgical background is sketchy at best, but I don't understand the mechanism that allows a hardening chemical to penetrate into the metal to any significant depth.

This is also the first time I have heard that a part can be ruined by a surface hardening process. It has always been my understanding that failures of a surface hardened part are a result of either a failure of the underlying metal, or they happen when the hardened surface is breached in some manner and friction destroys the exposed, softer metal. I've alway read/heard that the surface hardening processes have little or no effect on the overall structural strength of the piece due to the extreme thinness of the hardened "shell."

BrokenArrow
March 31, 2004, 04:01 PM
The Tenifer process is owned/licensed now by the Durferrit division of the HEF Group. That's the German division of a French (or is it Finnish?) multi national corporation (according the Ken Metzger, prez of HEF USA; call them for details).

Tenifer and Melonite are just different trade names (there are more) for the same process. QPQ means quench-polish-quench and is a variation of the process with extra dunks in the tank. Melonite on stainless and "through hardened" stainless steel beats Tenifer on surface hardened steel for hardness, lubricity, and corrosion resistance.

Might be why a local guy can shoot his reloads in his S&W Sigma w/o any problems, or put the bbl of his Sigma in his Glock w/o any problems, but the same loads in his Glock w Glock bbl regularly blow cases?

Or maybe not, and it's just Fickle Fate and Lady Luck doin' their thang again? ;)

JohnKSa
April 1, 2004, 12:04 AM
http://burlingtoneng.com/wear_resistance.html

Treatment durations of 1-2 hours usually yield compound layers about 10-20 _m thick (0.0004 - 0.0008").

There's also some charts showing treatment time versus thickness of the treatment affected layer.

It appears that softer and unalloyed steels can rapidly (in less than 2 hours) reach a treatment thickness of .040" but in alloyed steel, 4 hours of treatment will only penetrate to a depth of .004"

The site implies, but does not explicitly state that the maximum depth of treatment is .04"

At any rate, it seems unlikely that a relatively hard steel alloy could be "overtreated" in any reasonable amount of time. It certainly doesn't apear that a matter of seconds or even minutes of overtreatment is going to make any significant difference. In fact, the charts would lead one to believe that even double treating a relatively thick part made of a relatively hard alloy (a barrel, for example) would make very little difference.

Also, I think I'm mixing stuff up a little bit. There are two different types of layers mentioned. The actual hardening takes place on the outer layer (compound layer?) which seems to be about 10 times thinner than the total thickness of treatment penetration.

Dean Speir
April 4, 2004, 01:45 PM
Roland-G23 explains: your disservice to gun enthusiasts is your polemic commentary about Glocks and the lack of support at the case head in some models. Your kB! "MYTH" is that people seem to believe that ALL glocks are going to blow up at some point, and thats just not true. Any firearm can go boom (the wrong kind of boom) if the ammo used is faulty in some aspect. I reject your characterization of factual reportage as somehow being "polemic commentary." If you have dispute with it on factual grounds, then post your information. If it's merely that you can't stand hearing discouraging words about a gun in which you have some sort of emotional investment, I can appreciate your loyalty to all things Glock, but the true "'MYTH'" here is that Glocks are perfect and that Glock-owners are, as a whole, able to approach the matter objectively.

The "Kool-Aid-Drinkers" certainly don't "believe that ALL glocks are going to blow up at some point," and the Chicken Little alarmists probably shouldn't be allowed access to a modem until they've brushed up on their reading comprehension skills.

You're quite welcome to accept or reject the kB! FAQ. It's there to advise thems what are interested that when Glock states "Use only high quality commercially manufactured ammunition, in excellent condition…," they really really mean it, and you, and any other Glock shooter, ignore that advisory, or dismiss it as "legal boilerplate," at your own risk.

So why the vociferous objections… the opprobrious characterizations? The point is many unexperienced firearms enthusiasts considering a Glock purchase might stumble across your little corner of cyberspace, and accept your FAQ as gospel. We can but hope… and why would you possibly object to that? You appear to take the stance that Glock's are more prevalent to this, yet the only guns I have personally seen blow up are a 1911 (double-charge handload), a couple of M16s (barrel obstruction and bullet setback), and a M60 (don't know what caused this one). I have a friend that had a Glock 22 kB! with Speer factory ammo, which Glock replaced at Speer's expense. Well, Roland, I've seen a great deal more than that… and, unfortunately for your position, the kB!s which, in my experience, have predominately been in the Glock pistols since they introduced the Models 22 and 23 in May 1990. Now you either have to acknowledge that this is an issue, or make your case that all the photos in the Glock section (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/gindex.html) of TGZ (as well as those over on GlockTalk) are fiendish fakes created in Photoshop. I've heard of one instance where a PD had a Glock 21 kb! where the officer claimed he was firing factory Winchester ammunition, and sent the shell cases along with the Glock 21 back to Glock. Turns out he had actually been shooting his own reloads (against his department policy) when the kB! happened. Forensic analysis of the firearm by Winchester and Glock revealed that no Winchester ammunition had been fired through that weapon, and the shell cases did not bear the unique Glock striker marks on the primer. The examples of these types of events are widespread, and my own documentation process has revealed many such instances. Just last Spring a retired police crime lab technician, on retainer to a plaintiff's law firm, contacted me about a Model 22 which had experienced a catastrophic failure with "Federal's American Eagle" factory-new brand of ammunition… when I requested a fuller description of the cartridge case involved, the headstamp of the round which had been given him in the red and blue American Eagle box actually read "A-MERC." The shooter hadn't even been honest with his own law firm, and the criminologist/retained expert, wasn't up-to-date on his head-stamps. While the jury is still out on what caused the PPB's Glock 21s to kB!, I still believe the problem is ammo related until I hear or read otherwise. [shrug]

Everyone, I'm certain, will try to avoid confusing you with any information which does not conform to what you already firmly believe.

I don't know the answer to the Tenifer question… FWIW, I do know that it's a "batch process," as it's too expensive to perform otherwise, Robar's Robby Barrkman explained to me a decade ago… I think he used the words "cryo" and "cyanide," as well.

I also know, after having just finished reviewing my ten-pound box of Glock files looking for a report which PPB's Sgt. Mike Lee requested, that I have a number of independent lab reports (H.P. White, Amenex Associates, etc.) as well as those from various Government labs (U.S. Treasury, D.E.A., etc.) detailing some of the problems discovered while inspecting and subjecting Glock pistols to a variety of tests and special electron imaging.

One report on the Model 21 and ammunition that injured a U.S. Customs Service Agent flat-out states that, while the incident Winchester 185-grain Silvertip round was over-pressure... "...the barrel was in a dangerously unsafe metallurgical condition when it was manufactured...." The next paragraph expresses the damning opinion that: "The mechanical design of the barrel is also deficient and dangerous, because there is too little thickness of steel in the critical portion of the barrel surrounding the firing chamber...." (I have another, reasonably contemporaneous, report somewhere in my files from a third lab which "mapped" the chamber of another Glock Model 21, the results revealing wildly inconsistent structural "hardness" with data given on the Rockwell scale.)

And two different lab reports, one involving Glock Models 20 and the other a Model 21 (in each instance law enforcement pistol which experienced catastrophic failures), state unequivocally that the design of the feed ramps were the primary cause. The Model 21 report also included a close-up photo of the "Ruptured, but fully chambered cartridge case."

So, there ya go… if it's not "The shooter is limp-wristing," then "It's the ammo, stupid!" according to the gnomes of Smyrna and Deutsch-Wagram.

Those not in Gaston's employ, however, often have a different view. Still wanna shoot the messenger?

JohnKSa
April 4, 2004, 11:27 PM
Dean,

On another thread you mentioned the total number of Glock 21 kB!s you have documented over the lifespan of this design (IIRC the number was something like 3 dozen in about 14 years.) I asked what percentage of those involved "high quality original factory" ammunition but that thread has since faded off the front page and you may have missed the question..

I also wonder if you would address the question asked earlier on this thread about how a normal SAAMI pressure round could split a barrel lengthwise as a result of a case blowout from lack of chamber support.

Thanks,

John

Dean Speir
April 5, 2004, 12:06 AM
JohnKSa asks:…what percentage of those involved "high quality original factory" ammunition?

…how a normal SAAMI pressure round could split a barrel lengthwise as a result of a case blowout from lack of chamber support.
After just wading though 14 years of material, I'd put the number at about 25%.

Bad metal is just that, John… bad metal. If that's where the, for lack of a better term, "fault line" resided, then that's how it's gonna play.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but the kB! FAQ authors have never maintained that there was any single one element responsible for the catastrophic failures, rather feeling that the unsupported chambers, the out-of-battery (dis)abiity, a higher-than-pressure-spec piece of ammo (poorly made or, in the case of the .40 S&W, one exhibiting a "set-back spike")… were all contributory, and the likelihood of a kB! rose exponentially as each element was present. That's why I think the best solution of the Glock owner is to eschew anything other than factory-new rounds.

JohnKSa
April 5, 2004, 12:13 AM
After just wading though 14 years of material, I'd put the number at about 25%.
So you're saying that in the 14 years that Glocks have been on the market you've documented something like 9 or 10 Glock 21 kB!s involving "high quality factory ammunition."
...I think the best solution of the Glock owner is to eschew anything other than factory-new rounds.
That sounds like excellent advice. I second.

Dean Speir
April 5, 2004, 10:20 AM
Your focus on the description "'high quality factory ammunition'" gives me pause… I'll amend my response to factory-new ammunition (as opposed to personally reloaded or commercially remanufactured) since some may argue that PMC, American and now even Federal don't qualify as "high quality." There was a time that those wonderful folks in Smyrna attempted to exclude the OEMs like ProLoad, CorBon and (red box) Black Hills from their "high quality commercially manufactured ammunition" definition. At one point they even started casting a jaundiced eye on Hornady…. That sounds like excellent advice. I second. Honest-to-Peter-Alan-Kasler, John, it's the very raison d'etre of the Glock kB! FAQ, and we cannot understand why the "Glock Flock" has such a problem understanding that… are they all reading-disabled, or just too emotionally involved with their polymer pistols?!?

Yet even a cursory glance through almost any GT thread reveals a "Hell!, I've been reloading for my Model 22 (or 21 or 35) for years and never had a problem!" message.

JohnKSa
April 5, 2004, 10:18 PM
Eh, I'll stick with "high quality factory ammunition" designation. I think Black hills "remanufactured" ammo is much higher quality than some of of the "factory new" stuff out there. I wouldn't hesitate to use Black Hills blue box ammo in any gun I own. On the other hand, American Ammo is possibly the worst garbage on the market but still qualifies as "factory new". I had some but would only shoot it in my Ruger P89--the rounds that would chamber anyway... ;)

PotAHto, potayto, perhaps...

It took me awhile to realize that the Glock portion of your website is primarily oriented toward discouraging the use of poor quality/reloaded ammo in Glocks. I think many people read it and never figure that out--many seem to get the idea that you're trying to run the company and its product into the ground. Some of that is probably the way you present things, (IMO flashy sensational tends to win over objective technical at the gunzone) and by the time they get to your relatively objective conclusions (if they get there), they're not paying too much attention. That and the fact that the site is a bit more oriented towards "exposing a design flaw" as opposed to "preventing accidents by working within the limitations of a design". It's a fine distinction, some might say, but there is a bit of a difference.

I think that one very useful addition to your site would be a section on kB!s including the following data for each kB!

Date of Incident, type of gun, type of ammo

A bit dry, perhaps, but quite revealing, and certainly not available any place else.

Seeing, for example that 75% of Glock 21 kB!s involve reloads or poor quality ammunition might actually prevent a person or two from ending up with a sore hand and a damaged gun--or maybe not. Some people are bent on their own destruction.

If you enjoyed reading about "I may just sell my Glock 21..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!