I may just sell my Glock 21...

[Roland-G23]

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]

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

 

[Roland-G23]

Oh, so this is what its all about?

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

 

[Grump]

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? 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]

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]

jc2,

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]

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]

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...

 

[jc2]

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]

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]

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]

Marko,

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

Toward a greater clarity…

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]

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.