Never shoot lead in a Glock?????????

[Ozzieman]

Glock 9 mm with lead.
I have heard time after time from internet experts that you never shoot Glocks with lead of any type. Glock also says that but also they say no reloads (lawyer suggestion/demand).
In the Nov 2013 American Rifleman Magazine there is an article written by John Haviland named “Shooting for less” Page 52.
It’s primarily about reloading and the decreased cost you can get from picking certain powders, bullets and other components. It’s a well written article for people getting into reloading.
Now here is my problem, He talked about shooting a hundred rounds of lead through a Glock 19, that hexagonal rifling due to rounded edges has minimal leading compared to normal rifling.
What gives here, I own 2 Glocks both 9mm and I spend a lot more money reloading jacketed VS the other 6, 9mm guns that I shoot mostly lead.
I have been looking for aftermarket barrels for the G34 so I can shoot lead and now I read this.
What Gives.

[pax]

Not all gun writers do their research.

With polygonal rifling, you tend to get less fouling overall (as he observed). You also tend to get slightly higher velocities, which is a plus. However, the fouling you do get builds up on the mating surfaces and not in the grooves. This narrows the passage through the barrel, which in turn can produce much higher pressures than the barrel is designed to contain.

It's different from traditional rifling because when you shoot bare lead through traditional rifling, the lead tends to build up in the grooves, which can mess up your accuracy when it gets bad enough. But with those traditional barrels, the fouling rarely builds up enough to narrow the passageway and increase the pressure to dangerous levels.

pax

[marine6680]

I don't have the November issue... I wish I did, I would like to read that article.

I have read stories of people using lead in Glocks... but usually small numbers of rounds.

I wouldn't shoot a lot of lead rounds in one, for the reasons given above.

[Ozzieman]

Finally an intelligent answer to lead in a Glock rather than “they said it on the internet”.
By the way I went to your web site. Being married to a cat person I was intrigued.
GREAT web site and my wife is reading it right now. People thinking about getting their first gun should go there.
editor of Concealed Carry Magazine I am inpressed

[chewie146]

I've seen Glocks do fine with hard cast lead, and some that didn't. The only way we could tell is to try it slowly and check for serious fouling. Dead soft lead is a different animal. Properly sized, hard cast does fine. From my summation, it's usually people who don't check for fouling and send round after round downrange that get a big ole kaboom in their guns. I've only done this with my buddy's Glock's, and we put less than 200 rounds through the 10mm. You can also buy aftermarket barrels for your pistol. As I recall, that wasn't suggested in the article.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

The best way to shoot lead in a Glock IMO is with an aftermarket barrel. Better suited. Some use a .357 bullet rather than a stock .356 in the 9mm. The slightly larger round makes a snugger fit and more accurate. But a square peg in a round hole may fit with a hammer but it is fits better with a round peg IE the aftermarket barrel I suggest.

As far as jacketed why not try plated? Much cheaper and just as easy to load as FMJ. Just be sure to not overcrimp as the lead is softer than the cast bullets and crush easily. Doing so can also cause the plate to separate. Use the cast load data or the medium load data as the max.

Another thing to keep in mind (depending on the model) case swelling has been associated with the Glock barrels. might want to ask someone in the reloading section about which models have the issue. Another thing that an aftermarket barrel solves is the swelling if it is associated with your gun.

[Tinner666]

I read it on the internet. Buy Wolf barrels. Regular rifling for shooting lead, and a 'fuller' chamber to prevent 'Glock Bulge'.
I haven't run any reloads yet, but they don't bulge with my normal loads.
Inexpensive too.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Tinner666

I read it on the internet. Buy Wolf barrels. Regular rifling for shooting lead, and a 'fuller' chamber to prevent 'Glock Bulge'.
I haven't run any reloads yet, but they don't bulge with my normal loads.
Inexpensive too.

This is a hit or miss proposition in a general sense. True for one caliber and not another and sometimes from one Glock generation to another. My Lone Wolf barrels chambered in 357sig have tighter chambers but actually have worse feed ramp intrusion than the stock barrel.

[sig1]

I work with a guy that reloads and shoots hardcast only out of all his glocks with stock barrels and he said it is not an issue as long as you use hardcast, he gave me 50 rounds of reloads to try out of my gen 4 g23 and they shot great.

[lee n. field]

I have been looking for aftermarket barrels for the G34 so I can shoot lead and now I read this.
What Gives.

Frequently. Asked. Question.

Spend $100 (more or less) on a Lonewolf barrel. Spend another $15 or $20 of a Lee Factory Crimp die, for when you find that some of your handloads don't seat well int he Lonewolf chamber.

Peace of mind, and a shiny attractive stainless barrel.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by sig1

I work with a guy that reloads and shoots hardcast only out of all his glocks with stock barrels and he said it is not an issue as long as you use hardcast, he gave me 50 rounds of reloads to try out of my gen 4 g23 and they shot great.

Yeah, hardcast bullets aren't an issue in Glocks. It's normal soft lead that can be a problem.

[Powderman]

Sigh.

Pax and WrecknCrew have it spot on.

Folks, why tempt fate? Why take the chance in the name of "saving" a few dollars?

I've posted it before, I'll post it again: Directly from Smyrna, GA, from the folks that build Glock handguns in the United States: Do NOT use lead bullets in a factory Glock barrel. Period. Full stop.

[RX-79G]

Just for clarity, Glocks have "Cyclonic" rifling, which is a type of polygonal rifling, but distinctly different from any other polygonal rifling I've ever seen, and they were around long before Glocks.

This is a Glock problem, not a polygonal barrel problem.

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Powderman

Sigh.

Pax and WrecknCrew have it spot on.

Folks, why tempt fate? Why take the chance in the name of "saving" a few dollars?

I've posted it before, I'll post it again: Directly from Smyrna, GA, from the folks that build Glock handguns in the United States: Do NOT use lead bullets in a factory Glock barrel. Period. Full stop.

Directly from Smyrna, GA: do not shoot handloaded ammo in Glocks. Period. Full stop.

Yeah sounds ridiculous.

I've shot thousands of rounds 9mm and .40 hardcast bullets through my Glocks. Typically 200 rds per session and normal cleaning afterward. I also have aftermarket bbls. Can't tell any difference.

If you don't like regular cleaning after shooting or have doubts then get an aftermarket bbl and call it good.

[JohnKSa]

Yeah, hardcast bullets aren't an issue in Glocks. It's normal soft lead that can be a problem.

Hardcast may or may not be an issue in polygonal rifling. It depends on the specific barrel involved. If you're really interested in the topic, The Glock in Competition has a chapter written by Mark Passamaneck, a mechanical engineer with a forensics background that covers it thoroughly.

It's not that every Glock will have a problem shooting lead, it's that some will have a serious problem and it's not possible to come up with a rule of thumb that will insure safety. It's also important not to assume that because you've been doing it and haven't had a problem that you're home free. One documented incident involved a Glock with over 20,000 rounds of lead bullet loads through it. In one range session the owner unknowingly pushed just a little too far and ended up with a gun in pieces.

This is a Glock problem, not a polygonal barrel problem.

It's possible that the specific style of Glock rifling makes them more prone to this issue, but it's a mistake to believe that other styles of polygonal rifling are immune. There is adequate information available, for those wishing to research the issue, to verify that the issue is polygonal rifling, not just Glock's particular style of polygonal rifling.

Yeah sounds ridiculous.

Don't take Glock's word for it if you're skeptical. There are other reliable sources of information on the topic.

I've shot thousands of rounds 9mm and .40 hardcast bullets through my Glocks.

That sounds very familiar. The reloader who blew up the gun that sparked Mr. Passamaneck's research could have said exactly the same thing--right up until his gun blew up one day at the range.

Just to be clear, I am NOT suggesting that every single person who shoots lead in a Glock barrel is doomed to blow up his pistol. But there is an associated risk which is hard to quantify because small changes and differences can have a significant effect on the outcome. Testing, in one case, showed that the identical load in two apparently identical pistols had radically different effects. One of the pistols, after shooting 300 rounds showed minimal effect due to leading. The other apparently identical pistol, shooting the identical load showed twice the effect due to leading after only 75 rounds.

How do you come up with a rule of thumb when there's such a wide variance between apparently identical pistols? The answer is that you don't...

[RX-79G]

John,

No barrel is immune to leading, but HK and others were selling polygonal rifling at least a decade before Glocks and it was never an issue.

Glocks come out, people shoot lead from them, Glock says "our polygonal rifled barrels aren't compatible with lead" and all of a sudden it is all polygonal barrels.

Peters-Stahl, Kahr, Vector, Jericho/Baby Eagle, USP, Steyr GB, P7 and P9S all have polygonal barrels. No particular rep any of them ever got for leading.

Here's what a normal polygonal barrel looks like:
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/7...barrela4ae.jpg
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8616/rifling01.jpg

Here's what Glock barrels look like:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2...5469medium.jpg
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/pics/lonewolf/6.jpg

When I had several of these to compare, the Glock rifling had the most aggressive profile. I would guess it distorts the bullet more than any other rifling profile. Polygonal rifling is so subtle you could mistake it for smoothbore.

[Powderman]

Well, I guess you can sum it up this way:

It's like sitting down to a poker table spreading 2-5 dollar Hold'Em. It's a friendly game...right?

Now, imagine the owner of the house/bar/club coming up to you and saying this:

"Everyone here likes playing poker, right? Let's make it interesting. At any time, I have the option of walking up to the table and pointing to a player. If I do that, then that player is now wagering everything of value he or she owns, sold and liquidated down to the last dollar.

"If they win that hand, I double their money. If they lose that hand, I become the instant owner of all their real, financial and intellectual property.

"Of course, it might not be you. I might do it today--tomorrow--next week, month or year. As a matter of fact, I might NEVER do it.

"The choice is yours, if you want to play or leave."

Would YOU gamble at that table....ever?

[Ruger45LC]

I've shot hardcast through all my Glocks and I've seen some lead very quickly and some not lead at all.

I don't have a 19 anymore but when I did I ran a bunch of 147gr Missouri's through it with zero issues and practically no leading. I know a few guys who have only shot lead out of their 19's and 17's, basically an all lead diet and never an issue.

As long as it isn't leading badly, shooting lead through a Glock isn't a concern.

[Team 57]

As a new Glock owner (and a new gun owner to boot), how do I know if I have any hard or soft lead bullets? Does it say it on the box? Sorry for the newbie question...

[Theohazard]

^^^ Most ammo you buy will have a full or partial copper jacket over the lead. This is what you want to shoot through your Glock. What we're talking about is un-jacketed bullets where the lead is fully exposed, and that's stuff to avoid. Luckily, it's pretty easy to avoid because most available ammo is FMJ (full-metal jacket) or JHP (jacketed hollow-point), both of which are fine to shoot because there is copper over the lead.

[Skans]

I don't like plastic guns blowing up in my hand. Therefore, I choose to listen to the manufacturer and NOT shoot naked lead bullets through my Glock 17. If I really want to shoot naked lead bullets in my Glock 17, I'd simply buy a rifled barrel for it.

There's a difference between lawyer-written and engineer-written safety instructions. It would be advisable to heed the latter.

[pax]

Apropos of nothing much, when my grandpa was alive nobody in their right mind would ride in his car with him if they had any choice. Whenever someone would mention his bad driving, he would be indignant: "What are you talking about?!" he would say,"I've never had an accident."

Grandma would just roll her eyes and say, "Yes... But you'll only ever have one."

pax

[wayneinFL]

I used to load 230gr 45acp cast from wheel weight lead, water quenched, lubed with Lee Liquid Alox, at a little under 800 fps. I also used to load 180 grain in 10mm at 40 S&W velocities, same lead, same lube. I never had any visible leading whatsoever, and I shot up to 300 rounds at a time. Never saw any signs of overpressure in my brass or primers, either. I suppose there must have been some leading, but it couldn't have been more than copper fouling.

I'm not saying Glocks haven't blown up with lead ammunition. They've blown up with jacketed ammunition, so I'm sure they've done it with lead. 1911s do it, too. I've seen a barrel blow out on a semi-auto Thompson with factory jacketed ball ammunition.

Yes, there is a possibility that a low pressure, low velocity lead round could cause my Glock 20 or 30 barrel to rupture. I'm thinking it's about as likely as the possibility of my Glock 23 blowing on a 40 S&W jacketed factory round. Or the possibility of it happening to one of the guys shooting 9mm major in IPSC.

But if you don't like the odds, or you disagree with my assessment of the odds, don't do it. It's a free country.

[HKFan9]

Glock will also specifically tell you NOT to install a metal guide rod into their firearms and will give you very specific reasons as to why if you talk to one of the service reps on the phone, but every day I see Glocks with all kinds of "enhancements" and "aftermarket improvements"

No firearms mfg will condone the use of hand-loads, and why would they? Lets face it, hand load causes all types of issues because Joe Blow and Billy Blew think they are experts and accidentally double charge a load... blow their gun up.. and turn around and say well Smith & Wesson has a life time warranty they will pay for it. It is absurd to even expect any firearms mfg to not warn against using hand loads.

However Glock specifically recommends NOT using lead in their barrels because it has caused enough catastrophic failures to make it an issue like others have stated. Honestly why even risk it when you really aren't saving all that much money to reload with jacketed rounds these days anyways, or just spend the what... $150 for a Lone Wolf barrel, I am sure either option is still much cheaper than your medical bills would be if something did happen?

I work with a guy that reloads and shoots hardcast only out of all his glocks with stock barrels and he said it is not an issue as long as you use hardcast, he gave me 50 rounds of reloads to try out of my gen 4 g23 and they shot great.

That right there is the scariest notion of the thread, even if we weren't talking about Glocks with lead, is your buddy going to pay for your gun to be replaced or more important your medical bills if something does happen?

[JohnKSa]

No barrel is immune to leading, but HK and others were selling polygonal rifling at least a decade before Glocks and it was never an issue.

Glocks come out, people shoot lead from them, Glock says "our polygonal rifled barrels aren't compatible with lead" and all of a sudden it is all polygonal barrels.

Peters-Stahl, Kahr, Vector, Jericho/Baby Eagle, USP, Steyr GB, P7 and P9S all have polygonal barrels. No particular rep any of them ever got for leading.

I'm aware of all that. Polygonal rifling has actually been around a lot longer than that.

There are good sources of information on the topic that have nothing to do with Glock. The most commonly quoted source is the late Gale McMillan, a noted barrel maker who stated that lead and polygonal rifling was a bad mix based on his experience lapping polygonally rifled barrels.

If you poke around, there are incidents involving lead bullets with H&K guns, and Kahr recommends against the use of lead bullets but without getting intot the polygonal rifling issue. The thing to keep in mind with most of the other guns you list is that they were intended for markets where reloading is rare and offered in calibers where lead bullets are very rarely loaded in factory ammunition. Furthermore, a number of them are rather high-end products. All of those facts cut down on the likelihood of their ever being used with lead bullets.

It wasn't until Glock made polygonally rifled barrels in a variety of calibers as common as dirt in the U.S., where reloading was also common, that the combination of lead and polygonal rifling became an issue that needed to be addressed.

I've shot hardcast through all my Glocks and I've seen some lead very quickly and some not lead at all.

And that's the crux of the matter. No one has yet been able to come up with a general rule of thumb (Shoot X rounds and then clean and you'll never have a problem.) that is accurate across the board. What works well in one Glock leads very rapidly in a second apparently identical Glock. The variables involved are difficult to detect, let alone measure/quantify.

As a new Glock owner (and a new gun owner to boot), how do I know if I have any hard or soft lead bullets? Does it say it on the box? Sorry for the newbie question...

Theohazard is correct. Shoot jacketed bullets and it's not an issue at all. The concern is using unjacketed lead bullets.

I used to load 230gr 45acp cast from wheel weight lead, water quenched, lubed with Lee Liquid Alox, at a little under 800 fps. I also used to load 180 grain in 10mm at 40 S&W velocities, same lead, same lube. I never had any visible leading whatsoever, and I shot up to 300 rounds at a time. Never saw any signs of overpressure in my brass or primers, either. I suppose there must have been some leading, but it couldn't have been more than copper fouling.

Yes, some of them don't lead. Some lead a lot. The forensics engineer I mentioned did a lot of testing with different bullet hardness and different guns and in the end decided that the safest thing to do was to use plated bullets in his reloads. He couldn't come up with a rule that would allow the use of lead bullets and still limit the risk to an acceptable level.

Ok, so here's what I'm saying. If you've been shooting lead bullets through your Glock and haven't had any problems, you're PROBABLY safe if you keep doing exactly what you've been doing.

Keep cleaning as you have with the cleaning products you've been using, keep lubing with what you've been lubing, don't increase your round count between cleanings, etc. , etc.

1. If you change ANYTHING in your loading/cleaning/shooting routine, be very cautious initially to insure that you haven't altered things in a manner that may increase the lead fouling.

2. Do NOT assume that just because a second Glock looks just like the one you're using that the lead fouling rate in that Glock will be the same as the one you've been using.

3. Do not EVER shoot a jacketed round through the bore until you've THOROUGHLY removed all the lead fouling first. That's a good general rule for any gun, but it's especially important with Glocks.

4. Don't recommend that other people follow your example. The fact that you have a Glock that doesn't lead badly doesn't mean that Glock your buddy just bought or the one that the guy on the internet just brought home will perform the same way. Passamaneck's testing proved conclusively that such an assumption is inaccurate.

#4 is really the critical one. If you know the score, or think you know the score, and don't mind taking the risk, that's up to you. It's your gun, your fingers, your eyes. But you should be VERY cautious about recommending that others follow your example unless you give them the entire story from both sides so that they can make an informed decision.

Experience is valuable, but the limited experience that most of us have (a few guns and a few thousand rounds) is really not much data compared to testing with a large number of guns done with sophisticated instrumentation and performed by qualified experts.

No firearms mfg will condone the use of hand-loads, and why would they?

It's interesting to see how people view manufacturer's cautions.

People make a lot of the fact that manufacturers tend to be conservative about what they recommend for use, or forbid for use, with their products. It's all about lawyer talk, they say. But apparently, nobody really thinks about what that means.

The ONLY reason that the manufacturers would recommend something or forbid something is to limit their liability in the event that something goes wrong. Why would they care if you use reloads to save money if there's no danger of ruining a gun that they might have to replace? Why would they care if you shoot lead bullets if there's no danger of damage that they don't want to pay for or can't afford to pay for?

There's no one sitting around at gun manufacturers thinking that they can spoil people's fun by forbidding reloads or lead bullets. They do it because NOT forbidding reloads or lead bullets opens the company up to liability that it can't tolerate financially.

With that in mind, knowing that the company crafts those recommendations to protect their financial well-being, what are we, as customers, putting at risk by ignoring those recommendations? Is what we risk so much less valuable to us that we can tolerate the loss? It's something to think about.