The Glock Kaboom myth!

[WvHiker]

Oneounce, I was kind of wondering along the same lines with regard to the 19. Maybe it's not so much a model issue as a caliber issue? Is it possible that designing a gun around 9mm and then producing it in different calibers is the culprit? I don't know, but it's something that occurred to me.

[FEG]

Would police departments and other departments across the nation continue to buy G22's?

When did the police become the ultimate arbiters of logic, discretion, and all things related to firearms? Police forces used to carry S&W Model 10s almost exclusively back in the day. I guess they got a whole lot "smarter" since then.

Police forces buy whatever meets their minimum specs. that is cheapest and/or marketed best, period.

[Sarge]

When .40 Glocks started appearing on LE ranges, they were immediately followed by a series of NCIC teletype bulletins describing guns bursting during range exercises. During the early 90's, the teletype was spitting them out at several a month. These were detailed, specific and usually described the type of ammo being used at the time of the event. Factory loads were named in the majority of them. Just to check my memory, I bounced this off somebody who worked full time at the communications desk at that time. She says AT LEAST once a week to her recollection, from about 91-94. I don't know if NCIC saves their officer safety bulletins from that far back. I've been away from uniform since '96, so I can't comment with any authority on what's been on the TTY since then.

If patrol cars, shotguns, or mace cannisters had been blowing up like that, there would have been hell to pay; MAJOR recalls, citing specific failures and serial # ranges, once the manufacturer acknowledged the problem. I don't really know how Glock managed to dodge that bullet, but I do know that it would be uncharacteristic for NCIC to have engaged in 'Glock bashing'.

I personally know of two Glock .40's that KaBoomed with Winchester factory loads another that went with new duty ammo; I can't recall zactly what it was so I won't say. A good friend also had a brand new 10mm Glock that blew with the first round of a reload, which we ran by the thousands through Colt Deltas. I shot the rest of the box of 10mm, which the 'blow-up' came from, through a Delta.

That said, I see less Glock-a-Booms than in years past. I'd bet lunch that Glock has made subtle changes, w/o admitting there ever was a problem in the first place. But there definitely was a problem and it wasn't 'the ammo'. We were running those loads through S&W, Sig and Beretta .40's w/o any problem at all. I have run literally thousands of .40 cal lead bullet reloads and factory FMJ through XD's w/o a problem.

Evidence of Glock's rather generous chambers and their, uh.. AMPLE feed ramp relief at six o'clock in the chamber is still easy to find. If you look at much fired .40 brass, you'll see many with the wedge-shaped firing pin indent and a big 'Bhudda-belly' just ahead of the extractor groove. I picked up scads of .40 brass when I started reloading that cartridge 3-4 years ago, and often Glock brass would be bulged so bad that it simply wouldn't enter a carbide die. I soon learned to toss these. Aside from the fact that messing with them is a nuisance, they had obviously been strained to near the breaking point. Each one of those was a 'near-Kaboom' which, fortunately for that particular shooter, didn't happen.

Posted by me, in the 2008 version of this thread.

This is the quintessential 'zombie topic; it never dies, no matter what you do to it.

I've since spent some time with these guns; now own a G23 and carry an issued G22 on duty. As mentioned above, I have long contended that Glock, never one to admit there was a chamber-support problem in the first place, made subtle changes to mitigate this problem over the years. Over time I noticed a couple of things that made me suspect this. More recently there was a third one, which when viewed in light of the others, convinced me altogether.

The first was the gradual extinction of the aforementioned NCIC Bulletins.

The second was the changes I've seen in range pick-up .40 brass (all I ever use) over the past 10-15 years. There was a time when you couldn't give me .40 brass which had been fired through a Glock; the stuff looked like somebody's bad pottery experiment, all done up in brass. This pained me, being a frugal sort; 'free' brass was everywhere and you couldn't use it! About 1995 however, some acquaintances related that they were now using said brass, but with a high mortality rate due to 'acute glockbelly'- meaning they were so bad they wouldn't go up into a Lee carbide die. I started loading the .40 not long after that and my experience confirmed what they told me. I've also noticed that in more recent times, those losses have diminished to just about nothing. My outfit issues G22's made in 2000 or so and I've reloaded some of that brass without any 'casualties' at all.

The third and defining event came when I compared two OEM Glock 23 barrels, made 11 years apart. This came about as a result of trying to sort out an aftermarket barrel, to determine why it wouldn't shoot as well as the factory offerings. Shown below are three G23 barrels, admittedly a small sample but interesting all the same. You take a look and decide for yourself.

[Eagleks]

Glocks in 9mm , do not have a undercarriage support, and Glock will tell you NOT to ever shoot +P+ in one due to the pressures ... and several shots will cause issues, cracks, etc. However, Springfield XD's, EMP's, Beretta's, etc. .... say.... shoot them all you want, it will just wear them out sooner if you are shooting thousands of rounds.

Not admit a design / mfg issue ?

1) you are admitting liabiliy and certainly will have to settle lawsuits for all situations where it has occurred already.

2) Fix issue quietly, incorporate it, and try to convince old Glock owners to buy the "new and improved" ones.

3) Ignore it and assess blame on the ammo manufacturers and mistreatment by owners, and duck and weave for a few years..... and save the redesign costs.

[Elvishead]

Sorry Elvishead, I guess that in your sleepy state, you missed the connection regarding design flaw parameters, risk, etc. The point is simply that Glock may very well have a gun that will kaboom at a rate that is higher than you would get with any other gun. While the flaw in the design may exist and may even be recognized by Glock as existing, it does not mean that Glock will necessarily make the corrective changes. Ford with the Pinto knew of the fire risk, ran the numbers on costs of a recall and of stopping production, and opted not to do either because it was cheaper to absorb the occasional lawsuit than to make the changes.

NASA knew the temps were too low for the O rings but reasoned that a failure wasn't very likely to happen as they had gotten away with below temp launches in the past and so went with the launch despite what could happen.

Both Ford and NASA knew of the problems and opted NOT to do the right thing. Just because a company knows something is wrong does not mean the company is going to fix it. That is the point.

I understand

[JohnKSa]

This is what happens when the case is unsupported and pressure get too high:

Nope. That's what happens when pressure gets too high.

If the brass cartridge had failed where the support was lacking but the barrel had remained intact then your comment would be correct. A simple case failure typically blows the magazine out of the gun, but it doesn't damage major structural components.

However that's not what happened in your picture. There was enough pressure to actually cause the steel of the chamber to fail. That means that the picture is simply a picture of an overpressure round. The fact that the cartridge case failed too isn't surprising given enough overpressure to ruin the barrel.

Glock will tell you NOT to ever shoot +P+ in one due to the pressures...

Where did you find this information?

In the 1992 edition of the armorer's manual it states, on page 12 that "GLOCK pistols will function properly with the new generation of 9x19mm ammunition including all +p+ and the 147 grain sub-sonic ammunition currently being introduced in the United States."

By the way, in addition to the redesign to thicken the web of .40S&W ammunition that has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread, there was also at least one recall on .40S&W by Federal Ammunition early in the history of the caliber. They admitted that some of their brass was too weak which would result in case failures.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the .40S&W Glock failures happened fairly early in the life of the cartridge. Since Glock was first to market with .40S&W pistols and sold a LOT of them very rapidly, it stands to reason that a lot of the teething problems with the .40S&W became associated with the Glock pistols.

Finally, the barrel rifling imposes some unusual restrictions on the type of ammunition used, something that American shooters weren't familiar with and something that many reloaders still refuse to accept.

That's not to say that Glocks don't have some features that may make them prone to certain types of failures--no design is perfect. But it's important to put things into perspective.

Maybe these kabooms only happen with 40's??

Nope, they can happen in pretty much any of them but it's true that at least in the beginning the .40S&W guns seemed to have far more than their share. The 9mm Glocks seem to be the most kB! proof.

If it was always the ammo then other brands of guns would have just as high of instance of KB as the Glock. They do not!

What is the rate of Glock kB!s and how does it compare to the rate of kB!s in other common pistols? Where did you find this information?

[Elvishead]

Since Glock was first to market with .40S&W pistols and sold a LOT of them very rapidly, it stands to reason that a lot of the teething problems with the .40S&W became associated with the Glock pistols.

Maybe they should have called it the Glock .40.

[Warchild]

I find it funny how people still discuss this topic. If you don't want a Glock because you're afraid of a Kb, by all means stay away from them and sell any you currently possess. That simply leaves more for me and all others who shoot factory ammo out of a Glock and have NEVER had the first issue. I've seen threads about XD's and M&P's with Kb's but for some reason people have short memories when it comes to guns other than Glocks.

[Double Naught Spy]

I find it funny how people still discuss this topic.

People still discuss this issue because it is an ongoing issue.

[Warchild]

As long as Glock and every other manufacturer mass produce handguns it always will be an issue, my point is how no one chooses to discuss the kabooms that happen with other manufacturers but focus on Glocks like they are the only ones it happens with.

[Warchild]

Do you not think if there were indisputable evidence pointing directly to Glock as the cause of these issues, that there would have been lawsuits brought against Glock for damages? Do you not think that if there were such suits and Glock were found liable that they would also not be forced to address the issue with something similar to a recall? Now there may be such documentation but I have never seen any as it relates to Glock having to settle a suit or pay a large sum to anyone as a result of a Glock caused KB.

[Sturmgewehre]

Nope. That's what happens when pressure gets too high.

If the brass cartridge had failed where the support was lacking but the barrel had remained intact then your comment would be correct. A simple case failure typically blows the magazine out of the gun, but it doesn't damage major structural components.

However that's not what happened in your picture. There was enough pressure to actually cause the steel of the chamber to fail. That means that the picture is simply a picture of an overpressure round. The fact that the cartridge case failed too isn't surprising given enough overpressure to ruin the barrel.

I just can't subscribe to this theory John. The reason being is I have never seen a blown Glock 21 that didn't have a destroyed chamber. I've seen plenty of cases blown in other autos and it's just the case that let go, the barrel, feed ramp, etc. were just fine... although every polymer gun has the lower trashed.

If there was even one instance that I could find of a G21 that had a case blow out that didn't also have the chamber/feed ramp ripped apart, I would go with you on this one.

But there is clearly a weakness/design flaw in the 21's chamber... hence my use of aftermarket barrels.

See the most recent one I linked to above. The cop who was shooting his G21 that also blew out his chamber and this happened just last month.

[TMackey]

The pic in post 28 is worth a thousand words.

Do you really think Glock changed things for the heck of it?

[Warchild]

Makes you wonder if they did that because of an inherent flaw or if they did it because too many people were firing reloads or flawed factory ammo and then crying about Glocks being crap.

[OJ]

I had mine in my G23 - but, in retrospect, it was my own fault. I was shooting "factory reloaded" ammo - thinking there was a difference since it was "factory" stuff. In retrospect, who knows what "factory" it really was and, a reload by any other name -----is still a reload.

I was just grateful for Glock's solid construction - prevented any real injury to me. It was the last round in the magazine and it blew the magazine out and sprayed my face with burning powder - but no real injury - was wearing good eye protection. Had to replace internal parts but basic structure of gun was OK.

I had bought the ammo from the range and the guy behind the counter kept insisting I should clean my gun more often so such KB wouldn't happen.

I haven't shot there since and, they eventually went broke - think I know why.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by TMackey

The pic in post 28 is worth a thousand words.

Thank you. You are welcome to use it; I would only ask that you include the source document.

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2...for-glock.html

[vikingm03]

Attention glock owners, please do not have any association with the crappy ammo known as reloads! They will damage your guns and should be avoided like the plague! Just fire your weapon, then CAREFULLY and switfly remove yourself from the vicinity of the evil anti-glock brass, so that i may CAREFULLY come and collect said brass... for "disposal" with the help of my 1911

(hope you glock fans can take a joke lol)

[drail]

I would add be very aware of any round that sets back when chambered repeatedly (bad idea in any pistol but especially one with less than full case support).

[rbohm]

every firearms manufacturer has had issues with guns self destructing, glock is no exception. one of the issues seems to be poor reloads, be they factory reloads, or reloads by the average person trying to save a little money. my understanding is that like most guns today, glocks dont like lead rounds, and the lead fouls the bores and will cause problems. one of the gun magazines, i think it was guns and ammo, did a test a number of years ago where they torture tested a glock 19, i think, with reloads that they did. they used a large variety of propellants up to, but not including, C4, and they fired several hundred rounds with no issues. many of their reloads were hot reloads as well.

i think that careful selection of used brass, and proper amounts of power, and a properly set bullet, and reloads in a glock should be fine. also sometimes those factory reloads were done by some idiot in his basement, put in a factory box, and returned to a store for credit or cash refund. this is one reason i dont by reloads, factory or otherwise.

[RockyMtnTactical]

The Kaboom thing has been so exaggerated it is not even funny. Just like most myths out there about certain guns like "The AK is not very accurate", "The AR15 is not very reliable", "You don't need to aim with a shotgun", etc...

[alienbogey]

How can they admit that there might be a flaw in the design when their advertising slogan is "Glock Perfection"?

Besides their ugliness, their poor fit for my hands, Glock Leg, and the repeated, recurring examples - with pictures and backstories - of kabooms at a rate out of proportion to other major manufacturers, their unbridled Austrian Arrogance rubs my fur the wrong way.

No Glocks for me.

[TMackey]

Makes you wonder if they did that because of an inherent flaw or if they did it because too many people were firing reloads or flawed factory ammo and then crying about Glocks being crap.

Nice sig.

[JohnKSa]

The reason being is I have never seen a blown Glock 21 that didn't have a destroyed chamber.

That doesn't surprise me at all. What that's telling you is that you haven't seen an blown Glock 21 that wasn't blown up by an overpressure event. And it doesn't surprise me that you've seen more than one Glock blown up by an overpressure event given that there are still a large number of people who absolutely refuse to believe that the Glock design places certain somewhat unusual restrictions on ammunition & reloading.

As an aside, I find it pretty amazing that you can find multiple threads like this one on the forums swearing up and down that there's a kB! problem with Glocks and at the same time there are also multiple threads full of folks swearing up and down that Glock's restrictions on ammunition and reloading are nothing other than legalese CYA. Talk about a failure to put 2 and 2 together...

I've seen plenty of cases blown in other autos and it's just the case that let go, the barrel, feed ramp, etc. were just fine...

That's telling you that those failures were simple case failures, not overpressure events.

The bottom line is that if there's enough overpressure to ruin the chamber then there's also enough pressure to blow out the case. The cause of the failure in that situation is the overpressure, not the failure of the case. The idea that the only thing that's holding the gun together is the brass in the cartridge case doesn't hold water.

[oldcspsarge]

The photos depicting the changing level of support on Glock factory barrels is a good example of why cases fail, due to lack of support.

The reason chamber area failures are so ruptured is Glock DOES NOT heat treat their barrels, like every other firearms manufacturer in the World DOES !

All after-market barrels for Glocks ARE heat treated for strength and all supply more support in the chamber/ramp area.

Glock uses cheaper resulfurized steel and processes them in Tennifer.
This surface hardens the interior and exterior of the barrel but not the core, which flexes at a different rate. It is NOT the same as heat treating the barrel .

IF you want to shoot reloads or cast bullets in ANY Glock, purchase a Lone Wolf barrel for around $ 100 and you will NOT have the failure issue. You will still void the factory warranty...but have the safety factor a Glock barrel will not give you.

Glock KB's have been in all calibers...3 in a row in New Mexico State Police Testing in 357 SIG...they bought Sigs...no more problems.

Colorado State Patrol and Division of Wildlife testing KB'd 2 Glock 40's in an hour on the range with factory ammo....they opted for the S&W M&P....zero problems.

To be safe IF you are a Glock person, change the barrel to an after-market barrel and shoot any ammo you wish...safely !

Glock 21's have had more recent failures

[Sturmgewehre]

That seems to contradict John's theory and support mine. But then I don't know anything about Glock's heat treating processes for their barrels.

Where did you come by this information?