Fatelvis
Member
Has Glock started using fully supported chambers, or are they still unsupported? Also, was it only 40S&Ws that had the problem with KBs? Thanks-
Glock still have unsupported chambers?
- Thread starter Fatelvis
- Start date
- Status
No pistol has a fully supported chamber, at least not any conventional service pistols. Glock increased the amount of chamber support in their .40 line something like fifteen years ago.
And any gun is likely to blow up if you fire again with a squib stuck in the barrel, or if you fire it with a double charge of propellant, not just Glocks. Remember who has the largest market share (Glock) and especially who has the largest share of pistols in the hands of new shooters, like at academies, where they will be shooting a good amount and may be less likely to notice a squib.
And any gun is likely to blow up if you fire again with a squib stuck in the barrel, or if you fire it with a double charge of propellant, not just Glocks. Remember who has the largest market share (Glock) and especially who has the largest share of pistols in the hands of new shooters, like at academies, where they will be shooting a good amount and may be less likely to notice a squib.
For some interesting "KB" data, search this sight for instances of kb. Lots of scary pictures of various KaBooms.
http://www.thegunzone.com/
http://www.thegunzone.com/
OP
OP
Fatelvis
Member
Thanks NG. I take it you're a fan of Glocks, lol. I am not a fan of them, and am not familiar with them, but a friend of mine asked me about this, and I wanted to answer him accurately.
Last edited:
When I went through the Glock armorer's course not long after the GEN 4 came out, I asked if the new guns had addressed that chamber issue & was told they had not.
The reason given was that it's part of retaining the feeding reliability.
This came from a travelling Glock instructor I've known for well over 25 years & he's a very knowledgeable ex-cop & longtime firearms instructor, former member of Jeff Cooper's outfit.
Like the Glocks or not, their chambers ARE more unsupported (or less fully supported) than many other brands.
And, they remain so.
And, it's not just the .40s.
Denis
The reason given was that it's part of retaining the feeding reliability.
This came from a travelling Glock instructor I've known for well over 25 years & he's a very knowledgeable ex-cop & longtime firearms instructor, former member of Jeff Cooper's outfit.
Like the Glocks or not, their chambers ARE more unsupported (or less fully supported) than many other brands.
And, they remain so.
And, it's not just the .40s.
Denis
mesinge2
Member
While I am not a Glock fan (grip shape issue) and don't currently own one. IMO, the KB incidents are seen more often with Glocks for a couple of reasons. Simply, they are quite popular and there are probably more glock owners than M&P and XD owners as NG VI pointed out. Second, IIRC Glock states in the manual "don't use reloads". They say this because of the polygonal rifling and many reloads are made with lead. Polygonal rifling does not take leading well. Finally I think a lot of mall ninja types buy a Glock in 40 because it is 'tacticool' and they know nothing real about guns. So, they abuse it with double charged reloads, improper maintenance, improper ammo, etc.
Last edited:
The newer Glock barrels have the same or very close to the same support as almost all the other popular .40 service pistols. Their chambers are a bit loosened up compared to some though. There's plenty of pictures online of a newer .40 glock barrel next to barrels made by sig, s&w, etc and you can't tell the difference by looking at them like you could with the older barrels. Some of the older ones had less support. When I put a gen 2 up next to a gen 4 I can see the difference and I can also see the difference in the ejected brass as well. Do I feel unsafe shooting reloads through the gen 2? Of course not.
OP
OP
Fatelvis
Member
#1
Hmmm.....still wondering. Guess an email to Glock is in order. Thanks for the input Guys!
#2
#3
Hmmm.....still wondering. Guess an email to Glock is in order. Thanks for the input Guys!
StrutStopper
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 636
I've heard you shouldn't shoot .40 reloads in a glock. I don't own one, but a friend of mine does. He heard the same thing when he bought the gun. I do reload .40 S&W, so when we go to the range I collect his brass. There is always a bulge at the bottom of the case near the head. I've heard this referred to as "glocked brass." When I run these thru the resizing die, they come out looking okay. I'm not sure I'd want to shoot them thru a gun that doesn't more fully support the case like the one that I assume caused the bulge in the first place. In a gun with a more fully supported chamber these reloads would be less likely to rupture near the case head. I'm not a Kaboom expert nor do I play one on TV, these are just my thoughts and observations. I'm sure if this is way off base someone more knowledgeable than I will chime in.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
I believe I had read several places that Glock had increased their chamber support in the late 90's or early 2000's, I'm not sure though. I do know that my G20 stock barrel has just as much chamber support as my Lone wolf barrel, which is supposed to have pretty good chamber support. The Glock chamber is definitely a little larger, and cases that have been fired in the standard chamber expand more than those fired in the LWD chamber. Lots of people reload Glock, most of them seem to use a factory crimp die with the innards removed to iron out minor "Glock smiles". If the Glock smiles are too large, the brass is pretty much shot.
WardenWolf
member
The vast majority of kabooms come in .40 caliber Glocks. The problem is twofold. Part of it is Glock's fault, and part of it is due to a flaw with the .40 S&W round. The .40 S&W round is unusually vulnerable to bullet setback, which can dramatically increase chamber pressure if the bullet is pushed in even slightly. This hugely exacerbates the problems with the Glock's unsupported chamber, and makes case blowouts much more likely. As a result, I consider .40 caliber Glocks a Bad Idea. They're usually fine in almost any other caliber, but .40 should be a no-go.
WYOMan
Member
Until someone can produce a chart that shows every centerfire firearm produced, the number of failures for each one, and a list of the causes of the failures, it's only conjecture to say that one manufacturer has had more than another. With the internet, news papers, and the 24 hour news, you would think that murders are higher now than ever before, but statics show they are down. Every time someone has any kind of problem with a firearm or ammunition, it's on you-tube, or someone's blog within minutes, and the stories fly about how people better stop using them. Does the show about the Remington 700 trigger ring any bells?
Setback is caused from improper of lack of crimp. True the design of the .40 cartridge might cause more movement of the bullet in the case when compared to say 9mm if both were assembled incorrectly....but it is still a problem with whomever crimped that round and not the gun. To say that you shouldn't shoot a reload through a Glock is silly. It's no different than any other .40 pistol out there as far as reloads go. The only debate is lead in a Glock and that's a whole different debate altogether. I have a .40 Glock that hasn't had one factory round though it....only reloads. It's only unsafe on the internet. Thankfully I shoot that pistol in real life instead.
Dan-O
Member
If you are worried about a kb, get yourself a $100 aftermarket barrel that has much better chamber support like the one pictured in post #17. The only Glock barrels that have fully supported chambers are the 31, 32, and 33.
It was not a documented issue in only the .40's.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/11/16/glock-20-10mm-auto-kaboom/
It was not a documented issue in only the .40's.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/11/16/glock-20-10mm-auto-kaboom/
Jonah71
Member
I've fired more rounds through my G 23 than I have any of my handguns. It's been my edc since I sold the old Kimber.I'll admit it took me a LOT of rounds to reach an acceptable level of accuracy. I don't reload or use reloads so I seriously doubt that I'll have any problems with the Glock in the future.
I did a test. I sized a new case, minimally flared the case mouth using a conical plug that did not expand the case body (that way i had maximum case tension on the bullet), and seated the bullet.
The round experienced .002" to .003" of bullet setback per feeding cycle regardles of the crimp or lack thereof.
This is the best case scenario.
A worse scenario is using an undersized plated bullet, in a dirty case, after it has been expanded and flared excessively. I have some plated bullets that mike .001" undersize. They set back more than oversized bullets.
So,
One should pay attention to tolerance stacking in order to avoid mishaps.
I suggest the following:
Sort your brass (case wall thickness and the resulting case tension on the bullet varies between brands).
Don't lube the brass by shaking it in a bag (lube will get inside the case and interfere with bullet retention).
Flare the case mouth minimally using a Lee Universal Expander die (it does not expand the case body). This will ensure maximum case tension on the bullet.
Use quality bullets, correctly sized or slightly oversized (using .356" bullets in a 9mm will produce less bullet setback than .354" bullets).
Use clean brass, tumbled in stainless media to remove carbon from inside of the case (a clean case wall will hold the bullet better than a carbon fouled one -carbon acts as a lubricant).
Crimp only to remove the bell and no more. Crimp does not stop bullet setback.
That's interesting. I did the same test and my calipers don't read any difference at all in the round. I tried chambering multiple rounds and also tried whacking the rounds on top of my work bench and re-measuring. Same size. These rounds were crimped using the lee fcd.
Whacking the round on top of the bench will not set the bullet back. What gun were you cycling them through? If your gun feeds them straight into the chamber that's one thing. On some guns (1911) the round has to glance off the feedramp and then off the roof of the chamber. Those platforms induce more setback than others with a more gradual feed angle.
- Status
