Glock 17 + lead no fighting please

[IMtheNRA]

Years ago, I read a post by Gale McMillan with a brief explanation of the problems of lead in a polygonal barrel - it is post #3 in this link to thefiringline.com

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18971

Quote: "The reason that a polygonal barrel will blow up when shooting lead is not due to fouling. It is that the soft lead wants to skid and if it does it locks up between two rifling flats and the pressure goes sky high. When I was making polygon rifle barrels the lead lap I used to lap the barrels some times would lock up and the only way you could get it out was to melt it out. If it were very hard lead it would help but why take the chance?"

 

[ljnowell]

Years ago, I read a post by Gale McMillan with a brief explanation of the problems of lead in a polygonal barrel - it is post #3 in this link to thefiringline.com

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18971

Quote: "The reason that a polygonal barrel will blow up when shooting lead is not due to fouling. It is that the soft lead wants to skid and if it does it locks up between two rifling flats and the pressure goes sky high. When I was making polygon rifle barrels the lead lap I used to lap the barrels some times would lock up and the only way you could get it out was to melt it out. If it were very hard lead it would help but why take the chance?"

Um.............no.

 

[jmay2174]

That's why manufactures don't like to warrant their guns when using reloads. I've been reloading for over 60 years and I will very rarely use reloads by someone else.

Joel

 

[JohnKSa]

Um.............no

Gale McMillan had a pretty good reputation for knowing his stuff when it came to guns and gun barrels. I think a casual dismissal of his caution isn't particularly prudent.

In addition to Gale McMillan's warning, we can also rely on the experiences of and testing done by Mark Passamaneck, a forensic engineer who researched the lead + Glock rifling problem after one of his pistols blew using lead bullet loads. It's worth pointing out that he shot over 20,000 trouble-free rounds of lead reloads before he pushed things just a little too far in one session and turned his gun into scrap metal and plastic. I say that because many people mistakenly assume that just because they've gotten away with it in the past they will never have a problem.

He published some of his findings and recommendations in a chapter of a book called "The Glock in Competition".

His assessment, after extensive testing, was that there isn't a simple rule of thumb that can be followed to insure safety across the board and therefore he stopped shooting unplated/unjacketed lead in his Glocks.

One of his findings was that while some pistols didn't seem to lead enough to cause a problem, another apparently identical pistol using the same load might lead very badly. One of his tests involved two identical Glocks using the same ammunition. One showed a nominal increase in pressure after 300 rounds while the second identical pistol using the same loading showed double the effect after shooting only 75 rounds. In other words, twice the effect from a quarter as many rounds.

It's worth a read for those who haven't already made up their mind.

A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks in advance.

The answer is 'Yes', and you can read the details in "The Glock in Competition".

 

[dg803]

I have a second gen 17 and have shot several thousand rounds of lrn through it. I am a stickler for a clean weapon so I haven't experienced leading through mine. MBC bullets are what I shoot. Seem to hold the best pattern for me. Just my personal experience.

 

[GLOOB]

One of his findings was that while some pistols didn't seem to lead enough to cause a problem, another apparently identical pistol using the same load might lead very badly. One of his tests involved two identical Glocks using the same ammunition. One showed a nominal increase in pressure after 300 rounds while the second identical pistol using the same loading showed double the effect after shooting only 75 rounds. In other words, twice the effect from a quarter as many rounds.

I highly doubt this is a difference between individual guns. More likely, it's just a matter of such bad fouling that it occasionally blows itself out. At any given point in time, the fouling could be better or worse. Plus, what does "double the effect" even mean? You think he can really measure chamber pressure in each Glock? This sounds like a bunch of horse excrement.

With the right bullet fit, Glocks don't lead up any worse than standard rifling. Actually, with the right load and bullet, they lead up less. The sharp edges of standard rifling often pick up at least a little bit of leading.

 

[JohnKSa]

More likely, it's just a matter of such bad fouling that it occasionally blows itself out. At any given point in time, the fouling could be better or worse. Plus, what does "double the effect" even mean? You think he can really measure chamber pressure in each Glock?

While he did do pressure measurements as part of his testing (he's a forensic engineer with access to a wide variety of instrumentation--here's the list of services his company provides: http://www.entropyec.com/services.html ), this particular test was done using a chronograph for each shot.

This insured that the leading/bore obstruction progress could be monitored continuously to provide a complete picture of how things were progressing. The test began with completely clean bores.

The first gun showed a gradual velocity increase, over the 300 rounds fired, that eventually added 50fps to the muzzle velocity compared to the first shot fired.

The second, apparently identical gun, using the same ammunition, showed a gradual velocity increase that added 100fps to the muzzle velocity at which point the test was ended prematurely, in the interests of safety, after only 75 rounds were fired.

With the right bullet fit, Glocks don't lead up any worse than standard rifling. Actually, with the right load and bullet, they lead up less. The sharp edges of standard rifling often pick up at least a little bit of leading.

Once the reason for his initial mishap was discovered, Mr. Passamaneck attempted to determine a way to continue to shoot lead safely and came to the conclusion that there was no simple, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem and stopped using unplated/unjacketed rounds in Glock barrels.

As I said, the information in the chapter is a good read if the topic interests you.

 

[GLOOB]

I still say his test does not prove what was stated. He would have needed to clean both Glocks and repeat the test a few times in order to show there was a significant difference between the two Glocks.

I believe what he has demonstrated is that a bad fouling load does not necessarily foul the barrel at a predictable rate. He took a crappy load and tried to determine how many rounds he could safely shoot between cleanings. And there was no predictable answer. So he stopped shooting this crappy load. Maybe he should have gone over to Cast Boolits for help on how to make a load that didn't foul so badly?

There isn't a "one-size-fits-all" cast bullet load that shoots accurately and cleanly out of all guns. But it's not too hard to find one for your gun, even if it's a Glock. You don't need an engineering degree and do expensive tests to figure out fouling bad, clean bore good. To me, this is a guy that let his gun get so dirty it blew up. Then in hindsight he set about to prove how it wasn't his fault.

 

[JohnKSa]

He took a crappy load and tried to determine how many rounds he could safely shoot between cleanings.

You're missing the point of the test. He wasn't trying to rule out lead or explain why using it is a bad idea. This testing was supposed to help come up with a good rule of thumb that would allow lead to be used safely. There was no reason for him to use a "crappy load" or a "bad fouling load"--his motivation was to be able to continue shooting lead as he had been for the previous 20K+ rounds before he blew his Glock. This test, and other tests, convinced him that the risk wasn't worth the savings and he switched to plated bullets.

There isn't a "one-size-fits-all" cast bullet load that shoots accurately and cleanly out of all guns.

Although that's true, shooting "accurately and cleanly" is not the main point--not even close. It's one thing to say that a load that is accurate and clean in one gun isn't accurate and clean in all guns--that's a truism but it doesn't address safety at all. It's a completely different thing to say that a load that shoots safely for hundreds of rounds in one Glock could, in a different but apparently identical Glock generate a dangerous level of bore obstruction before the shooter has used up 2 boxes of ammo.

Or, said another way, the fact that shooter A has had perfect luck shooting thousands of rounds of particular lead bullet load is no guarantee that shooter B using the same model gun and same loading won't blow his gun up in a typical range session consisting of only 3 or 4 boxes of ammunition.

Then in hindsight he set about to prove how it wasn't his fault.

That's absolutely not the case at all. Here's a quote from the chapter in question.

The embarrassing part for me is that I have a page full of numbers that I recorded prior to the failure. I was shooting over a chronograph when the gun blew...
...
I look at the numbers now and wonder how I did not pick up what was occurring.​

He makes no attempt to try to prove it wasn't his fault--to the contrary, he clearly states that he is embarrassed that he missed the clear warning signs.

I still say his test does not prove what was stated.

I still say it's worth a read for those who haven't already made up their mind.

 

[GLOOB]

There was no reason for him to use a "crappy load" or a "bad fouling load"

And yet, he did.

It's a completely different thing to say that a load that shoots safely for hundreds of rounds in one Glock could, in a different but apparently identical Glock generate a dangerous level of bore obstruction before the shooter has used up 2 boxes of ammo.

It's not hard to shoot several hundred cast rounds through a Glock with NO leading at all. You don't need a chronograph to see there's no increase in pressure. If you want to shoot the same load in another Glock (or any gun), you would obviously check the bore for leading, just in case. But chances are very high that what shoots in one Glock WILL shoot in another. Slug your Glock's bore, and I bet you get .356".

His crappy load is the reason there was such a "big difference" (if you can call 50fps a big difference) between the two Glocks.

I believe it is possible for cast bullets to blow up a Glock. And I believe it is possible to shoot cast bullets in a Glock, safely. If my cast loads fouled the bore like his, then I would have stop shooting them, too!

I still say it's worth a read for those who haven't already made up their mind.

You have to understand it's difficult for me. From what I've been told, so far, I'm not impressed. I don't watch a movie just to find out if it's as bad as the trailers. But you know who should be interested in this book? The insurer and owners of Double Tap, and any other ammo maker that sells cast bullets for Glocks.

 

[Rodfac]

Can't speak to the G17, but I have both a Lone Wolf and a Storm Lake 9mm barrel for my G23 and both shoot well with lead or jacketed bullets....gps at 10 yds from a Weaver Stance hover right around an inch in slow fire...At 67 yr's old, I can't see much better than that anymore. I'd be very surprised to try either make of bbl. in a G17 and find that lead alloy bullets are a problem.

As to shooting lead from a stock Glock barrel...a close friend, nationally ranked on the Glock proprietary combat shooting venue, (read: he's a subsidized shooter), absolutely warns against lead alloy bullets. Lead builds up in the throat region, changing headspace, drastically raising pressures, and eventually, may allow the piece to fire out of battery, or close to it. Just reporting his warning here, so don't bother to flame me. Do as you please, but I'd not willingly shoot next to you if you're playing the game with lead and a stock bbl.

Best Regards, Rod

 

[JohnKSa]

...if you can call 50fps a big difference...

The difference in the velocity is 2x, which is a fairly significant difference. But that's not really the main point. The main point is that 4X FEWER rounds resulted in 2X HIGHER velocity due to increased pressure.

The test was attempting to find some basic method of insuring that safety was maintained and ended up proving that what was perfectly safe in one gun resulted in a 100% velocity increase due to pressure with 75% fewer rounds shot. How do you make a general rule based on those results? The answer is that you can't.

It's not hard to shoot several hundred cast rounds through a Glock with NO leading at all.

He does indicate that he has "seen some Glocks that do not seem to lead"--but then points out that the tests he's carried out show that the same load in another Glock will result in leading. Again, the point is that it's not possible to say that if you follow this rule, if you do this, if you don't do that you'll be safe.

Furthermore, your assessment that the apparent lack of visual leading means that there is no pressure buildup is mistaken. The pressure measurements he did (and details in the book) indicate that there is even a slight pressure increase from shooting a number of jacketed rounds due to the small amount of fouling buildup caused. A little thought will reveal that if even the small amount of fouling/metal fouling from a jacketed load results in measureable pressure increase, it should be plain that even when leading doesn't seem to be obvious or significant there can still be pressure buildup as a result.

In addition, the testing shows that while the pressure increase from jacketed loads rises only slightly and then levels off, the pressure increase from leading doesn't always level off until well after the pressure is high enough to blow the gun and the increase isn't linear. That means that while the pressure increase from one round to the next may be small/incremental at first, as the progression continues, the pressure increase from one round to the next will increase until it is increasing dramatically from one round to the next.

And yet, he did.... His crappy load...

If you really have an interest in learning about this topic, you should read the book. Even if you don't have an interest in learning about the topic, but still want to speak intelligently about the contents of the book you should read it.

Basically nearly everything you've assumed about the book is incorrect. The testing done took place over a long period involving many different loads, different bullet hardnesses, many different guns and many different testing protocols. Some of the testing was actually done for clients to determine if there was product liability as a result of an incident experienced by a client.

I obviously can't and won't reproduce the entire chapter here, but your repeated insistence that this issue boils down to one particular loading that you claim is "crappy" is a massive oversimplification and a terrible misrepresentation of the material.

You have to understand it's difficult for me.

I think you may believe that I'm trying to change your mind. I'm not, that's why I've said twice now that the chapter is a good read "for those who haven't already made up their mind".

If you choose to ignore the testing results and information, that's purely your business, provided you don't do it next to me at the range. It's your gun, your fingers and eyes, your choice. I'm not trying to change your mind because, frankly, I don't really think it's possible given your responses.

So why did I even chime in? Because not everyone who reads this thread will have made up their mind to the point of being resistant to the facts. I think it's important to let people know that, contrary to what is often claimed on the internet, there is hard evidence that shooting lead (unjacketed/unplated) bullets in factory Glock barrels can be dangerous.