Pros and Cons about Glock

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Thanx for the great information. Based upon what I've read here, I'm going to rent a 17 and a 19 to test fire. My ultimate purchase will depend upon that.

One question, though. What is "firing out of battery?"

And, kbs. That is an explosion that damages the gun, right?

Ok, two questions.

 

[dmallind]

Firing out of battery means the risky and presumably unintentionally designed ability for a semiauto to fire with the slide almost but not quite fully returned to battery - which is the "normal" locked up position with the breechface resting fully forward. While there is some debate about this, strong anecdotal evidence points to the fact that a bog-standard Glock can indeed have the striker move the firing pin with enough force to at least dimple and potentially even ignite while the breechface is not completely forward.

This also feeds into an increased risk of kb or kB or ka-BOOM! where this slight gap or lack of full chamber support allows an outlet for the explosion other than (technically in addition to) sending the bullet forward. This is also anecdotally more prevalent in Glocks although I suspect the huge number of Glocks in service contributes heavily here. It's also heavily centered on the .40 caliber. The 9mm Glocks are almost universally - even by Glock haters - acknowledged as exceedingly safe (as far as OOB and kBs go) and reliable.

 

[JohnKSa]

I tend to have little respect for "experts".

Clearly!

I have asked the person that did all of those "pressure test" to publish his actual findings.

A very reasonable request. Therefore, I make the same very reasonable request of you. Please publish your "testing protocol." Please let us know "the type and model of your testing equipment."

My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.

I own 4. I will not shoot lead bullets in my Glocks because what the experts say makes perfect sense to me and because I don't have the pressure testing equipment to prove otherwise. I don't always accept what experts say--as you point out, they're not always right. But this time it makes sense.

As far as proving anything by shooting lead in my Glocks, it's like the old saying goes, One doesn't have to actually eat an egg to know it's rotten. Anyway, simply shooting a few rounds of lead in my Glock would prove very little--the forensic engineer admits that it took him over 20,000 rounds to blow up his Glock. Only THEN did he do the pressure testing that showed him why it happened. AND why it could happen with far fewer than 20,000 rounds if one were unlucky.

I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock.

Of COURSE you can shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You can also play golf in a thunderstorm or cross the street without looking both ways.

It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.

Nope, anyone who knows me would laugh at a statement like that. I don't blindly accept what experts say--but I don't blindly dismiss whatever they say either.

As far as admitting I'm wrong, I'm sure you could find a few instances on THR or TFL. I'm wrong at times and when I am, I admit it. But Joe, this isn't about ME being wrong. I'm just telling you what the barrel maker says--what the manufacturer says--what the forensic engineer's pressure testing says--what various other experts say. Your quarrel is with THEM, not me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your position is in direct opposition to what these experts have to say.

Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?

Nobody says that Glock barrels are SUPPOSED to lead. The problem is that they tend to be more prone to leading and, more to the point, when they DO begin to lead, the situation rapidly becomes dangerous. Furthermore, it's not as easy to tell if they are leaded, so if they begin to lead so the shooter may not realize what's happening. As far as why one barrel leads and another doesn't, there are lots of reasons for that--I'm sure you know them all. As to why you haven't had problems yet--like Mr. MacMillan says--if you haven't had problems yet, just be patient.

I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.

MY reasons? Listen to Mr. MacMillan's reasons. Listen to the forensic engineer's reasons. Listen to Glock's reasons. Why would you accept my reasons (some anonymous guy on the web) over the high-powered experts out there who have given far better reasons than I could.

BTW I do not believe in luck.

The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

 

[355sigfan]

I like both Glocks and 1911's for what they are good fighting sidearms.
Pat

 

[RFM]

I really can't figure out why Glocks are so popular.
After field stripping one, it seemed a little on the
cheap and flimsy side to me. Also, I could never
achieve tight groups with it

To each, his own I always say,...

 

[XDKingslayer]

If you are going to rent a Glock and give it a spin, rent a Springfield Arms XD series while you are at it for a good comparison.

I personally don't like Glocks. They feel goofy to me. But that is subjective and why I recommend trying other pistols. My beef with the Glock other than feel is that some models have non-fully supported barrels. I don't like that and prefer a pistol with a fully supported chamber.

I also like the additional safety on the XD. Take that one step further and look at the Taurus polymers that actually have a manual safety on them if that is a concern of yours.

 

[brickboy240]

I used to own a Glock 17 (amognst other hi-cap 9s) but traded it for an XD.

The Glocks pluses are its durability and reliability and simplicity. All of which I have found with the XD.

If you (like me) shoot 1911s, Sigs, Hi-Powers or the CZ-75, the grip angle on any Glock will give you fits. It is swept too far backwards and if you're used to these other pistols, it will seem to point way too high. I found the transition between these others and the Glock unnerving and sold the Glock 17. it was not a bad pistol, just didn't feel right.

If the Glocks feel good to you, go for it...they're just not for me.

If you shoot any of the above mentioned other pistols and want a polymer-type pistol, I highly reccomend the Springfield XD. Don't let the Glock desciples poo-poo it - the XD is a pretty good piece. I own Colts, Sigs and a FN Hi-Power so I am used to high quality pistols and the XD impressed me and is a real keeper.

- Brickboy240

 

[orangeninja]

My favorite Glocks are the 26, 19, 30 and 21.

 

[Joe D]

Wow John, that took a lot of effort! Did not know I riled you up so. I am waiting on HIS tests. I have proven to myself lead bullets are just as safe to shoot in a Glock as any other gun. I try to live in a common sense world. Something that is sadly lacking these days.
My tests? When I first started seeing posts on the internet about lead bullets and Glocks I had to think about it for a moment. It did not make sense to me. I had been told many, many years ago by Fred Kart that barrel leading starts at the juncture of the lands and grooves. That sharp corner was the culprit. The Glock barrel profile is more rounded. No sharp corners. So being a wild and reckless type I decided to see if all of that talk was correct. I took my G34 and loaded a couple of hundred rounds of a 125 gr Valiant lead bullet and 3.5 gr of Titegroup powder. Velocity was a bit over 1050 fps. After a hundred rounds I checked the bore, no lead. I repeated this until I hit 1,000 rounds. At 1,000 rounds there was just the slightest trace of lead. A couple of passes with a Bore Snake and that was gone.
I have over 2,500 rounds of lead bullets through my G21 so far without any lead. Is my 9mm conversion barrel unsafe because it leads and my Glock barrel does not? Are my Kimbers unsafe because they lead and my Glock 21 does not?
You and I will never agree on this issue. That is fine with me, but answer me this. Aren't you afraid to shoot your Glocks with those unsupported chambers? Maybe you have installed aftermarket barrels in all of them. What about "firing out of battery"? Do you still have all of your fingers? I pegged you wrong. You ARE a "wild and crazy guy".

 

[JohnKSa]

Naw, I'm not riled up. However, I do think it is VERY important to provide a counterpoint to your comments. Not everyone is as careful as you are. Not everyone knows how careful you are. And lastly--perhaps most importantly--not everyone is as lucky as you have been.

While you certainly have the right to do whatever you want, I believe that it is unwise to encourage others to do the same given the number of experts who strongly recommend against it.

I have proven to myself lead bullets are just as safe to shoot in a Glock as any other gun.

With all due respect, you haven't actually "proven" anything. You may be satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn from your shooting, but in the absence of pressure testing, that is far from being proof of anything.

As with many practices that are not recommended, the fact that a person gets away with it for a long time (or even for a lifetime) doesn't prove that it is safe. It only proves that the person is lucky or perhaps very careful. For example, I know smokers who have lived to a ripe old age, but that doesn't prove that smoking is safe, only that some people are lucky to be less affected than others.

You and I will never agree on this issue.

Well, that may or may not be true, but I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out that while your anecdotal evidence points to one conclusion, there are plenty of well-respected experts who disagree strongly.

Aren't you afraid to shoot your Glocks with those unsupported chambers? Maybe you have installed aftermarket barrels in all of them. What about "firing out of battery"? Do you still have all of your fingers? I pegged you wrong. You ARE a "wild and crazy guy".

I'm certainly not one to believe everything I read on the web. No aftermarket barrels, no missing fingers, no fear of Glocks.

 

[GunAdmirer]

I avoid the whole lead reload issue by reloading with Berry's copper plated bullets. They work very well, don't lead the barrel and are only a little more expensive than lead. I've shot well over a thousand of them through my various pistols with no problems and good accuracy.

I love my Glocks. They aren't the prettiest pistols but are unsurpassed for reliability and longevity. I tactually like the way they look.

Parts are easy to come by and Glocks are easy to repair and clean - IF you ever needed to.

The owner of our club's range has a Glock 17 with over 250,000 rounds through it. He still rents it out every week and has only replaced a trigger spring. The grip is smooth in spots but it keeps on firing.

Half or more of the guys in our pistol club shoot Glocks at the different matches. It is really rare to see one jam. I saw the first one jam today because an inexperienced shooter didn't fully seat the magazine.

 

[Black Majik]

Since I've written this same thing over and over before, I'll give give the pro/con format of the Glock.

Pro: Reliability, durability, and dependability (doesn't that sound like a truck commercial?) They're light, come with a lightrail that doesn't protrude from the frame, and they're usually high capacity. Awesome finish. Very easy take down and fieldstrip.

Con: The awkward grip angle, spongy trigger, plastic sights, quite thick.


I had a Glock 23 once, I wanted to try the Glock niche. I honestly felt that if the Glock fit me, the compact size Glocks (19/23/32) would be the perfect CCW weapon.

The two things that bothered me most was the grip angle and the spongy trigger. While I don't like em', I do respect them. I tried the Glock thing once, and once is good enough.

 

[Joe D]

You know John, I am very skeptical about the "forensic engineer's" tests. No one seems to be able to come up with his test methods or equipment that he used. Where did he get his test barrel? Did he make one? Was it a CUP test, Piezo strain gauge or transducer? Make and model of his equipment?
Did the "famous barrel maker" actually test a Glock barrel or was it just an opinion? If it was just an opinion then that's all it was. His "opinion" is worthless without any testing. At least I have done enough "testing" to prove to me that shooting lead through Glocks is just as safe as shooting lead through any gun.
There are several posters on various forums that appear to stake their reputation on what these few "experts" have to say.
I have been shooting competitively since I was 12, gunsmithing for 30+ years, reloading for 35, IDPA Master. Does all that make me an expert? Nope, but I do have a wee bit of experience.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

dmallind said,

Firing out of battery means the risky and presumably unintentionally designed ability for a semiauto to fire with the slide almost but not quite fully returned to battery - which is the "normal" locked up position with the breechface resting fully forward. While there is some debate about this, strong anecdotal evidence points to the fact that a bog-standard Glock can indeed have the striker move the firing pin with enough force to at least dimple and potentially even ignite while the breechface is not completely forward.

This also feeds into an increased risk of kb or kB or ka-BOOM! where this slight gap or lack of full chamber support allows an outlet for the explosion other than (technically in addition to) sending the bullet forward. This is also anecdotally more prevalent in Glocks although I suspect the huge number of Glocks in service contributes heavily here. It's also heavily centered on the .40 caliber. The 9mm Glocks are almost universally - even by Glock haters - acknowledged as exceedingly safe (as far as OOB and kBs go) and reliable.

From here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173504&page=2&highlight=glock+battery

Quote:
9mm Glocks don't seem to be a problem for some reason

I think a big part of this is that the 9mms were considerably over-engineered. I think a lot of that over-engineering is why the .40 could be shoehorned into the same basic design with only minor changes. And I think that loss of margin is why the .40s, seem to be so much more problem prone.

I'm thinking that maybe since the 17 is the flagship of Glock, and that they've had sufficient time to upgrade (what is this, 3rd generation?), that maybe the 17 is best.

Now, if I can only remember to clean the chamber, don't use lead, (or is it, "don't use reloads?"), or if I use reloads, don't use Federal primers, don't use aftermarket springs, don't limpwrist while shooting, don't press the barrel against a wall and pull the trigger, brush my teeth before I shoot...........

I think I'm getting a headache. Maybe I should just take up stamp collecting.

 

[boldkharma]

Or just get a Sig P226

 

[IlikeSA]

Pros: popular with police forces and with population in general...how many "non-gun" people do you hear saying when they come to the store "I wanna see a Glock!"
Reliable

Cons:
More expensive than newer guns with more or better features
plastic magazine, sometimes jams in magwell
Plastic sights
Plastic trigger
Plastic guide rod for spring
Expensive for plastic (I've actually watched them be assembled in the factory, it doesn't cost them the 500 dollars you pay NIB)
New Gen 3 model has grips on it that sometimes doesn't fit the hand holding it
the Kabooms (I've witnessed it on the police range...2x with different Glocks, on the same day)
lack of external manual safety
Lack of mods, can be boring like my XD...it shoots great and theres nothing I can or need to do to modify it...where's the challenge in that

 

[Onmilo]

I find it fairly amusing that even the Glock Company itself explicitly states in the owners manual NOT to use lead bullet ammunition in any Glock firearm and someone will still post on the internet that fabled he has been shooting millions of lead bullet loads through his fabled factory Glock complete with fabled factory Glock barrel and never had a problem doing so, and fabled he recommends that you can do so and not worry about any problems doing so even though all the information and testing and exploded Glocks has conclusively proved that shooting lead bullet ammunition through Glock factory barrels is indeed a very problematic issue and one of the, if not THE, most common reason for the other internet issue,,, the famous explodes for no apparent reason Glock handgun.
I swear these posters must be affiliated with litigation lawers,,,,,,

I don't tell people that they can't shoot lead bullet ammuntion through their Glocks.
I insist that if they choose to do so, they spend the money for a proper aftermarket barrel specifically designed to safely accomodate lead bullet ammunition is the Glock pistol.
No one should ever say shooting lead bullet ammunition in Glock pistols can't be done.
They should state that shooting lead bullet ammunition can't be SAFELY done in the factory barrel.

 

[Rockstar]

Joe,
I guess you know by now that I generally agree with you. However, I would point out a couple of minor exceptions that I have with you in this thread. You make queries about the testing equipment used by the forensic engineer (He's MarkCO, a GT moderator, and the results are on his website; he's available for discussing his methods), but it's pretty clear that the only equipment that you used were a barrel and a bunch of lead bullets. I have to agree with John that you haven't proven anything; just provided anecdotes of your having shot a bunch of lead through your Glocks, with no malady so far.

The theory of why Glock barrels lead has nothing to do with the reference that you made to Kart. The theory is that, at higher velocities, the lead "smears" in the shallow rifling of the polygonal rifling, causing build-up just north of the chamber. I don't shoot lead through any of my firearms, simply because I don't like lead. I REALLY don't know if you're right or MarkCO's right...was just making observations.

I do know, however, from my own experience with Glocks, that firing out-of-battery/unsupported chambers aren't "dangerous" Glock design issues. I've had some off-center strikes, but ignition didn't occur. If a head does separate @ 6 o'clock, the damage to the Glock will be relatively minor. If a true catastrophic failure happens, it won't be due to a case failure at 6 o'clock; it'll be from a dramatic overpressure caused by too much powder crammed into the case.

 

[Biker]

I've likely fired equal amounts of factory lead and FMJ out of my G23 over the years, depending upon what was on sale and have experienced no problems. I wonder if it's because the FMJs 'clean' the lead out of my barrel? Is this a myth?
Biker

 

[Rockstar]

If your barrel is lead-occluded, the last thing you want to do is run a jacketed bullet through it!

 

[Biker]

Kinda makes my point. A few years ago, at 16,000 rounds, I quit counting how many rounds I put through my G23. Likely half of them were lead.
Biker

 

[355sigfan]

{Or just get a Sig P226}
END QUOTE

Sigs are nice but sig also says no reloads. Sigs frames crack (alluminum ones) sigs rust (prior to Nitrol finish) sigs have a crappy DA trigger (prior to dak) sigs have a long trigger reset when in SA mode. Sigs have a high bore axis that magnifies muzzle flip. Every gun has its pro's and cons.
Pat

 

[RyanM]

I dunno why people complain about the lack of customization options. There's lots of crazy custom junk you can do to a Glock. And just like a 1911, the more you depart from the original design, the less reliable they get.

There's also a ton of personal preference junk you can do that won't affect reliability. Especially for the trigger pull. My G23 has an 8 pound, revolver-like trigger with only a little stacking. Starts at about 6 pounds, ends at 8. Only cost about $30 to do.

 

[355sigfan]

Actually for the 1911 a lot of things have improved reliability. Lowered ejection port, polished feed ramps. ect. With the Glock stock is better.
Pat

 

[Joe D]

Rock, I have emailed him on several occasions to find out a little more about his testing protocol. No replies. I have stated many times that I don't drive lead bullets very fast. The "hottest" load is a 125 gr 9mm at 1050 fps. Most folks that have been around lead bullets for a while know it is unwise to push them much past 1,000 fps without a gas check.
Years ago the joke in the Bullseye circle were bullets made by the Zero Bullet Company. The joke was they had zero animony (sp?). I doubt they would go much over a 10 Brinnel. Anything over about 750 fps and you would have lead dripping out of your barrel.
I am really not trying to prove anyone wrong or win some argument. I think the real issue is someone started posting on their turf/forum that did not agree with them. Every forum has it's "Forum Kings". One can usually tell by the number of posts they do. All I have ever said is I and many others have shot lead through stock Glock barrels for years. I ran into a guy the other day that was shooting lead through his G17. I asked him, with a little smirk, how many barrels he had blown up due to the lead bullets. He said that was all he shot in his Glock. He did not know you were not supposed to.