Hello folks, when I originally posted this topic, I knew it might set off some controversy. I appologize for the ill will that has ensued. I found the incident interesting enough to post about (sorry about the picture timing). It also gave me a chance to opine on the wisdom of Glock running a "high pressure" round with relatively less "meat" supporting it (compared to my G-17). My opinion (simple observation) has long been that a gun should be a bit more robust. That is, the design should be able to resist failing due to changes in it's environment( eg. somewhat higher pressures than it's "rating"). Guns are not immune to the compromises of engineering. I am also of the opinion that an expensive gun should be fed high quality ammo, and after using a few boxes of Wolf I don't care for it's quality. I, too have observed the criticism of tools being taken personally and pity those individuals connecting their self-image to the tools. The combination of G-23 and Wolf ammo was, even though possibly isolated, very telling of Glock's supposed "perfection" to me in the .40 S&W arena. Glock's attitude is one I've observed before, "they are right, even when they are wrong". These are all my opinions. I shoot and buy guns, just not .40 S&W's. My Glock manual states that only "high quality" factory ammunition, in "excellent condition" be used. Glock has never provided objective information on which ammo meets their standards (and I haven't seen any other company do much of this, either). "Quality" is often a gray area, open to subjective judgement. Many people subjectively judge Wolf to be "high quality", I also subjectively, judge it to be of "poor quality" and wonder why people will spend good money on a gun and feed it "junk". Glock, in my manual, states that they cannot verify the pressures of reloaded ammo, and so do not want it used in their guns. From their standpoint, I agree. Car companies specify the standards of the fuel used in those tools, too, and test with everything available that meets those standards, and some that are sub-par. Does Glock test most available ammo in their guns?? I would like to think they do and belive it is their duty to define their design's limits. I understand that any gun can fail on any day, with any given ammo. I just like to think or trust that gun makers "know what they are doing". They have more capability of testing their products objectively than I do. When I chamber a round, I like to have confidence that the gun will work properly. I simply don't trust 9mm size guns chambered in .40 S&W, overblown hullabaloo or not. Just my opinions on a public forum. Thanks again, Dean for offering your insights and observations on a subject you know more about than I do. The rest of you, thanks for reading this long winded post, and sorry for the "stirring up".
Josh
