FMJ only in Glock?

[JohnKSa]

Lead has a high degree of lubricity against barrel steel. When lead is fired in the factory Glock barrel, it actually SKIDS over the first half-inch or so.

This is pretty much what Gale MacMillan said as well. The bullet skids, the lead builds up, discharge pressure rises, things get ugly.

As a side note one may wonder why neither H&K nor Kahr recommend against lead bullets in their polygonal rifled barrels. Makes you wonder at times why manufactures differ in their warnings regarding their products

Kahr doesn't say NOT to shoot lead, but there is a warning on their website that says: "Lead (unjacketed) bullets can cause excessive fouling and extra attention to cleaning the bore is recommended after firing lead bullets."

H&K doesn't prohibit it either, but TheGunZone does have photographs of a blown up H&K pistol that involved lead bullets.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/hk-expert.html

It is true that many manufacturers (if not all) state that no reloads should be used, however Glock ALSO states that no unjacketed rounds should be used. That's not a common precaution and therefore it shouldn't be dismissed as "typical CYA" since it's obviously not typical at all.

Makes you wonder at times why manufactures differ in their warnings regarding their products

That's really the key, isn't it? As long as one is wondering it means that one doesn't actually know.

The bottom line is that Glock says not to use unjacketed lead bullets in their pistols and there are experts (such as Gale MacMillan and Mark Passamaneck) who agree with Glock and have provided information that explains why the use of unjacketed rounds can blow up Glocks.

If you're going to go against their advice and shoot unjacketed bullets then I recommend a few precautions.

• Don't shoot a lot at each session. Mark Passamaneck's pressure measurements indicate that the discharge pressure increases with each round. It's definitely important to stop before it gets too high. Without the pressure measuring equipment that Glock and forensic engineers like Mr. Passamaneck have access to it's largely a guessing game as to how many rounds is too many rounds.
• Keep your reloads on the mild side so that you start the pressure build from a lower point.
• Clean very thoroughly after every trip to the range.
• Never EVER shoot jacketed rounds through the bore until you have COMPLETELY removed all traces of lead fouling from the bore. The combination of a lead-fouled bore and an unyielding jacketed round can be catastrophic. While shooting a jacketed round to blow the lead out of your barrel may work to some extent with revolvers (although it is still inadvisable), it should NEVER be used with Glocks and only with great caution with other autopistols. Beretta specifically advises against the practice in their manual even though they use conventional rifling.
• Don't recommend that other people follow your example unless you give them ALL the facts. The differences from one caliber to the next, from one gun to the next, from one shooter's cleaning techniques to the next, etc. can mean that they might not be as fortunate as you have been.

[Sturmgewehre]

Thanks again John.

[Gregory Gauvin]

I was going to attempt shooting some lead through my glock. Let's assume I use minimum loads, with a lighter bullet, with a slower powder, at max OAL to ensure safe starting pressures. Let's assume, after each shot, pressure begins to increase.

When working with FMJ reloads in my glock, there is a night and day difference in recoil between minimum loads and maximum loads. (To be honest, I never worked up to max, but close to it) I could clearly determine the pressure going up as the muzzle blast got bigger, recoil increased. I did this, checking cases with every batch, and measuring the case web. (he unsupported case head due to the feed ramp in the glock usually blows out first (from pics I've seen) when pressure gets too high and the case fails. AKA "Ka Boom". By increasing the charge .1 grain at a time and measuring the "bulge" and comparing it to a factory round, I determined where I felt comfortable where the maximum load should be. To keep it safe, I would want to make sure the case does not expand more than .02" less than a factory round. Essentially, this occurs right about midloads. I've decided, with this particular firearm and caliber, it just ain't even worth building up loads and I found that my minimum load was most accurate anyway. So, that experiment was just for fun as I'll be keeping my loads way down. The minimum load I use does not expand the case web at all, per my measurements.

So let's say I use a minimum load for lead. Granted, it'll give me a larger threshold for pressure, but as pressure builds, velocity must increase...and the burning rate of the powder will also increase. But, either, this is going to happen within X number of rounds where an experienced shooter will be able to tell "Hey! These loads are getting hotter." or, you might fire 1 round, and then the very next round is going to increase by 10,000PSI?

[christcorp]

I have 3 guns with polygonal barrels, and I shoot lead in all 3 of them. And considering that 99.99% of gun owners clean their guns more than they need to, you won't have a problem shooting lead in a polygonal barrel. It's the person who shoots mega rounds of lead through them and barely ever cleans the barrel/gun. But for the person who over cleans their guns and cleans their barrel/gun after each and every shooting outing, they will not have any problems shooting lead through a polygonal barrel.

But this goes back to the philosophy that some people have about "Better safe than sorry". There are some things they are ignorant of, and instead of caring about the truth, they prefer to not think about it and play it safe. This includes changing their car's motor oil every 3,000 miles even if the owner's manual says normal is 5,000 or some even say 7,500 miles. Or not dry firing their gun, even if the owner manual specifically says TO DO IT. So, do whatever you want.

[JohnKSa]

Another reminder to be extremely careful about keeping jacketed rounds out of a gun (ANY GUN, ANY RIFLING) that has been shot with lead ammunition until it has been THOROUGHLY cleaned. I just read another article in Shooting Times today cautioning against the practice. The author (Allan Jones) indicated that he had also seen revolvers damaged by the practice, not just autopistols. That was a new one on me. I had assumed that the venting between the barrel and cylinder would be sufficient to prevent problems in revolvers but that is not the case.

But for the person who over cleans their guns and cleans their barrel/gun after each and every shooting outing, they will not have any problems shooting lead through a polygonal barrel.

They will PROBABLY not have any problems...

Mr. Passamaneck is a forensic engineer. A meticulous person. He began researching the problem after he blew up a Glock during a shooting session (one of MANY) with lead bullets. He was cleaning the gun after each session, but one session he apparently shot one round too many.

It's like playing golf in a thunderstorm. The fact that you didn't get hit by lightning the last time is no guarantee that you'll be safe the next time you try it.

Being careful is good. Keeping your handloads mild is good. Cleaning thoroughly is good. But they are not guarantees that you will not have a problem, they merely reduce the chances. As Gale MacMillan said: "If you haven't had troubles yet (shooting lead in polygonal rifling) , just be patient."

[Sturmgewehre]

But this goes back to the philosophy that some people have about "Better safe than sorry". There are some things they are ignorant of,

How ironic. You jump in to tell the world it's a safe practice just because you haven't blown a gun up yet. Such "ignorance" on your part would be akin to playing Russian Roulette 3 times then telling everyone you know "go ahead, I've done it 3 times and it's not dangerous at all!"

Far more experienced shooters than yourself including world renown gunsmiths have spoken out on this issue and they all say "don't do it". Some have even gone so far as to say if you do it, it's not matter of "if" you'll blow a gun up but only "when".

and instead of caring about the truth, they prefer to not think about it and play it safe.

What you're telling people isn't the truth, what you're telling them will in all likelihood get someone hurt or at the very least cause them to suffer the loss of a firearm that a warranty will not cover.

This includes changing their car's motor oil every 3,000 miles even if the owner's manual says normal is 5,000 or some even say 7,500 miles. Or not dry firing their gun, even if the owner manual specifically says TO DO IT. So, do whatever you want.

None of which is relevant to the discussion.

[christcorp]

Sturmgewehre; if you believe that shooting a SINGLE lead round of ammo down the barrel of a Glock or any other polygonal barrel CAN CAUSE DAMAGE to the gun, then you win the argument. I can't argue that. If you say NO, 1 round isn't going to hurt it, then what about 2 rounds? Well, maybe you agree 2 rounds won't hurt it either. You're using a "Lightning" analogy, but the problem is, it isn't raining or thundering outside.

The ignorance I speak of, are those that don't want to research and determine that a reasonable amount of lead isn't going to hurt the gun. Especially if they clean it properly. Just like most manufacturers who say their guns are rated for +P loads, say NOT to shoot a steady diet of rounds through it of +P rounds. So, what is the magic number? Is it 1 magazine of ammo back to back??? Or is it a TOTAL of "X" amount of +P bullets going down the barrel. What constitutes too many? The person who says, I'd rather play it safe and NEVER shoot a +P bullet, or in this case a lead bullet, is ignorant. Ignorance is NOT a bad thing. It simply means they DON'T KNOW about something. We are all ignorant about a lot of things. I'm ignorant about nuclear fission. The difference is whether a person wants to learn or stay ignorant. Either way is their choice. Some prefer to play it safe. That's cool. I prefer to try and know the answer. Other than that, I stand by my position.

[Sturmgewehre]

Feel free to keep playing Russian roulette with your guns. I have no desire to stop you.

However, it's irresponsible to tell others to follow in your footsteps.

Firing lead through a Glock is a dangerous gamble. The problem is there isn't a set number of rounds that you can fire safely through a Glock using lead bullets. To pretend you've discovered that magical number and you can consistently avoid catastrophe by never exceeding this mythical number is silly at best.

Stop telling others it's safe because it's not.

[gyvel]

Quote:
You really need to learn to use the internet to your benefit.

What's the internet?

It's something Al Gore invented...

[christcorp]

sturm; you can believe that you're right. You're not, but believe what you want. Let's see, the "Jacketed" bullet was invented in 1883. Polygonal barrels have been around, how long? Oh yea, since about the beginning of barrels with any type of rifling. I guess they were shooting something else in the rifle instead of lead.

Now, if you want to talk about the gas system and lead, such as a Desert Eagle, let's talk. But if you want to talk barrels and lead, then believe what you want. If you clean your barrel, you can shoot lead. If you don't, then don't shoot lead.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stop the sniping and just answer a legit question. Thank you.

[Sturmgewehre]

sturm; you can believe that you're right. You're not, but believe what you want. Let's see, the "Jacketed" bullet was invented in 1883. Polygonal barrels have been around, how long? Oh yea, since about the beginning of barrels with any type of rifling. I guess they were shooting something else in the rifle instead of lead.

Now, if you want to talk about the gas system and lead, such as a Desert Eagle, let's talk. But if you want to talk barrels and lead, then believe what you want. If you clean your barrel, you can shoot lead. If you don't, then don't shoot lead.

You admit that cleaning your barrel is a must and you agree that you shouldn't shoot an excessive number of lead bullets. Presumably this is because you acknowledge that chamber pressures can and do spike when using lead.

So it's not a matter of if it happens, we both agree it does happen. You can post distorted versions of history and ballistics, or try to divert the conversation to discussions about Desert Eagles, P7's or Steyr GB's if you like, but those are nothing more than red herrings.

We both know lead causes problems in modern poly barrels. You believe if you shoot, oh lets say, less than roughly 100 rounds and clean your barrel thoroughly after each shooting session "like 99% of the shooters do" (another made up "fact") you should be fine.

The problem is, you think catastrophe can be avoided if you keep the shooting to a minimum and the cleaning regiment to a maximum. So far you've avoided blowing a gun up so you feel compelled to tell others they're "ignorant" of "facts" while folks like Gale McMillan (and Glock) say you're on a one way road to winning your own Darwin Award. I'll side with Gale.

But again, do new shooters a favor and don't tell them what you're doing is safe. It's not. That's a fact as we both know one round too many or with the wrong load and the gun can blow-up.

I'll leave it with that.

[christcorp]

Glenn, what is this "legit" question that you speak of. The original poster specifically asked for "Comments and Suggestions". But if you want it simple, I can do that.

1. Yes to FMJ
2. Yes to JHP
3. Yes to lead in moderation if you keep the barrel clean.

Did that answer the question?

[JohnKSa]

Polygonal barrels have been around, how long? Oh yea, since about the beginning of barrels with any type of rifling. I guess they were shooting something else in the rifle instead of lead.

It wasn't an issue with blackpowder guns due to two facts. First, you can't shoot very many rounds through a blackpowder gun without doing some thorough cleaning due to the excessive fouling from blackpowder. There wasn't a chance for a lot of leading to build up. Second, pressures were far, FAR lower with blackpowder firearms.

By the time smokeless powder began catching on, the industry had pretty much settled on what we now call conventional rifling. It wasn't until a very popular pistol came on the market back in the middle 1980s using polygonal rifling that people began learning that polygonal rifling in conjunction with modern smokeless powder (read "high pressure") loads with lead bullets could cause problems.

The problem with saying that lead in moderation is not a problem is that it's impossible to define what "in moderation" means. Without pressure measuring equipment it's not really possible to tell how your particular load and your particular firearm are going to react to shooting X number of rounds. I'd say that if you have shot X rounds of a particular loading through a particular pistol in the past without any problems and are very thorough in removing all the lead fouling then you're probably safe to shoot X rounds of that particular loading through that particular pistol in the future.

If you try a new load or try that load in a new pistol or try to shoot a few more rounds in a shooting session, what seem like minor differences might turn out to be significant to the point of being dangerous.

The main point isn't that it's "crazy dangerous" to shoot lead in a Glock and that doing it guarantees a kB!, the main point is that it has been documented as having the potential to cause serious problems AND that it's hard to define exactly how one can avoid those problems for certain other than just avoiding unjacketed rounds.

Your recommendations definitely make it SAFER, but it's impossible to give a recipe for safety. (i.e. "If you only shoot X rounds of load Y through pistol model Z with polygonal rifling you'll never have a problem.") The variations from one gun to another, from one barrel to another, from one person's implementation of a particular load to another are sufficient that what works perfectly well for one person could cause a catastrophic incident for someone else who is virtually duplicating the process modeled by the first person.

[christcorp]

John, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But my cz-82, which came out in 1982, has a polygonal barrel. And CZ didn't seem to have problems shooting lead. HK's also didn't seem to have problems shooting lead. Maybe with a glock, the lead issue isn't so much about the barrel. Like with a Desert Eagle, the problem is more it's gas tube system. Maybe with glock, it's something else. I admit that I don't shoot a lot of lead down my CZ. Mainly because I've stopped reloading; plus silver bear fmj and hp ammo is relatively cheap at $9 a box. But I do shoot a lot of lead down many other guns that don't have polygonal barrels. And as long as you clean the barrel, there's no problems.

[Powderman]

So let's say I use a minimum load for lead. Granted, it'll give me a larger threshold for pressure, but as pressure builds, velocity must increase...and the burning rate of the powder will also increase. But, either, this is going to happen within X number of rounds where an experienced shooter will be able to tell "Hey! These loads are getting hotter." or, you might fire 1 round, and then the very next round is going to increase by 10,000PSI?

The problem here--with increasing chamber pressure--is another topic entirely: bullet setback.

The kB problem with lead can be brought about by a couple of different factors. First, you might encounter a manufacturer (ammunition) that loads their lead bulleted rounds with medium soft lead; some will load with hard lead alloys; others, with dead soft.

When the kaBOOM occurs is when the bullet cannot (at least momentarily) overcome the resistance to its passage caused by the lead deposit. As you probably well know, firearms work on the principle of gas needing much more space than a solid. When the propellant is converted into gas--at the speed of firing the cartridge--the case becomes a pressure vessel. The gas expands in all directions until it encounters a weak point--which is the case mouth, plugged by the bullet. The bullet starts down the bore, powered by the expanding gas.

The second point here is that the case by itself is NOT strong enough to contain the pressure generated by powder burning. Here, the chamber lends its strength, containing the pressure generated until the bullet leaves the bore and pressure drops to safe operating levels.

Here is where the monkey wrench gets dropped into the gears.

The bullet gets to the choke point caused by lead deposits. It slows down--a LOT. The gas, meanwhile, is still expanding and looking for a place to go. It then acts on the next weakest surface--the part of the exposed case head/web that is not supported by the chamber, right over the feed ramp. (By the way, many point to this as the main problem with the Glock pistol. It can be found in ANY semiautomatic pistol. The only time you'll find a fully supported case is in a single shot firearm, a revolver, or a rifle where the breech face is fully seated into a recess in the barrel.)

The pressure in the chamber rockets upward. This also has the VERY bad effect of unlocking the breech--remember that the propellant gas is still pushing rearward at a frightening pressure, WAY beyond its design envelope.

Now, the gas has somewhere to go--right through the thin wall of the case, which is now exposed by the breech opening. Downward it travels, onto the cartridges in the magazine, and blowing the mag, sidewalls of the grip and possibly giving your firing hand an injury.

As far as firing lead bullets in your Glock pistol, it's up to you. I--and the factory reps, gunsmiths, and distributors of Glock pistols--highly recommend that you change the barrel out with a drop in replacement with conventional rifling. You can then shoot the stuffing out of anything you want with a glad heart and a clear conscience.

And, you might get away with shooting lead in that factory Glock barrel forever.

The question is: are you willing to take the chance with the stakes so high? Is your hand and arm worth the $90 or so for an aftermarket barrel?

Only you can answer the question.

[shortwave]

Powderman,
Thank You for a most informative/well written/accurate rundown of a KB.
Would make a nice sticky.

$90-$100(for aftermarket barrel) is simply no money for the piece of mind and the fact you don't have to worry about your ammo.

I've also got to add to the mix the fact that Glock surely wouldn't have put the lead shooting warning in their pamphlets if there wasn't something to it.

There are some people that won't buy a Glock for this reason alone. I'm sure the marketing staff for Glock knew this prior to printing the warning. Wasn't something they wanted to do but found it to be a CYA necessity.

I just can't believe Glock hasn't come out with a model having a factory conventional rifled barrel.

That would solve all these "to shoot lead" or " not to shoot lead" arguments and Glock could remove their WARNING!!! from their manual.

LIFE WOULD BE GOOOOOOD!

[JohnKSa]

John, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But my cz-82, which came out in 1982, has a polygonal barrel. And CZ didn't seem to have problems shooting lead. HK's also didn't seem to have problems shooting lead. Maybe with a glock, the lead issue isn't so much about the barrel. Like with a Desert Eagle, the problem is more it's gas tube system. Maybe with glock, it's something else. I admit that I don't shoot a lot of lead down my CZ. Mainly because I've stopped reloading; plus silver bear fmj and hp ammo is relatively cheap at $9 a box. But I do shoot a lot of lead down many other guns that don't have polygonal barrels. And as long as you clean the barrel, there's no problems.

I can tell you that there can be problems even if you clean the barrel and I've seen the pressure measurement data to prove it.

Is it the barrel? Well, against "Maybe...the lead issue isn't so much about the barrel" I can stack a forensic engineer's pressure measurements, the manufacturer's statement and recommendation and the comments of a noted gunsmith which all indicate that it definitely is the barrel.

I think part of the disconnect is that you believe that your personal experience is sufficient to counteract the information collected by experts using precision measuring equipment that neither you nor I have access to.

Your experience does not prove that it is safe, it proves only that it's often possible to get away with doing something risky. I think everyone understands that it's often possible to do risky things and get away with it. People speed without getting tickets, people have unprotected sex without catching STDs, people don't follow gun safety rules and yet avoid shooting someone accidentally. Of course SOME people get tickets, SOME get STDs and SOME shoot people accidentally even if many don't.

Most people also understand that it doesn't mean that everyone will get away with that risky practice like you (and others) have and it also doesn't mean that you will continue to get away with it indefinitely.

Mr. Passamaneck got away with the practice for somewhere around 20,000 rounds, if I recall correctly but it finally caught up with him.

I don't know what else to tell you. If you have pressure data to support your assertion that it's safe as long as you clean the barrel then I'd love to see it.

[spodwo]

An extremely informative thread. I just got a Glock 22 and I am in the market for another barrel - not to shoot lead - but to shoot 9mm. The information here though certainly has helped clarify "unleaded" Glock barrels.

Thanks...

[christcorp]

John, my position is not based on my experience. It's based on the fact that glock is not the "authority" in the matter. In other words, there are other manufacturers who have/had polygonal barrels and didn't mention problems with lead ammunition.

However, such warnings seem to constantly change. One thing that I've definitely noticed, especially in the United States, are company's fear of legal liability. Therefor, they warn and disavow themselves of EVERYTHING. For instance, just about every company says that their weapons are only guaranteed and warranted with "Commercial Factory" ammunition. They warn again using reloads and handloads. Which is also a major source of lead bullets. Yet, no one argues that using handload/reloads in a gun is a problem. But you're not going to get the gun manufacturer to officially condone it.

Kahr for example says on their website:
Q. Which ammunition is recommended for use with Kahr firearms?

A. Kahr Arms does not endorse any particular brand of ammunition. However, not every brand of ammunition produces the same results. Please check the markings on the barrel hood of your firearm to determine the proper caliber. Kahr suggests a visit to a pistol range to test fire different brands of ammunition in the proper caliber. Kahr cautions against the use of reloads. Lead (unjacketed) bullets can cause excessive fouling and extra attention to cleaning the bore is recommended after firing lead bullets. The Kahr pistol is rated to +P.

So they don't say no; just how to care for your weapon if you DO use lead bullets and reloads. So, what part of glocks warnings are because "The Gun will go Kaboom if you use lead"; and what part of glocks warnings are because "We don't want to be held legally liable, and we don't trust everyone to not be retarded with their guns. So we'll play it safe and say it's never allowed". TV shows usually say things like: "The views expressed on this program are not necessarily those of this station". It's a legal issue. I understand that. My wife's law firm has discussed many times how over the years more and more contracts and such are written to cover you a$$.

But people are free to do whatever they want. They can stay away from lead ammo if they want. That's cool. They can refuse to dry fire a gun because a particular gun has a problem with it, therefor they think all guns have a problem. They can continue to change the oil in their car every 3000 instead of what their owner's manual says because 40 years ago they used single weight motor oil with a different viscosity and chemical composition; but that's the way they were taught. People are free to do whatever they want. Polygonal barrels are not unique to glock. Some manufacturers don't seem to have the same concerns that glock have. Is it the barrel and lead are indeed an issue as much as it's a CYA legal liability issue with the manufacturer because there are STUPID gun owners out there that don't clean their guns? To each their own.

[Bongo Boy]

This is a controversy that will never, ever die, and has all the characteristics of an excellent controversy. Religiously-held beliefs backed up in many cases with sophisticated data collected with sensitive instruments (at apparently great expense), yet generally unpublished. What Scientific American once referred to as 'confirmed nonsense'. Inexplicable mystery causes & contradictory explanations, all backed up by experts and first-hand accounts.

The only conclusion I could possibly draw from some of the alleged data is that the gun is actually anticipating a lead bullet and changing its own behavior in accordance therewith.

The fundamental reason such controversies are never resolved is because so many people have that "I Want to Believe" poster hanging up somewhere.

My understanding is that all polygonal barrels are not the same, to begin with, and I know firsthand for a fact not all lead bullets are the same. We also know that barrels and bullets DO make a difference, in combination, with regard to lead fouling--I think we're all agreed on that. So, it's a clear mistake on anyone's part to make any over-generalized statement about polygonal barrels (as though they're all the same) and lead bullets (as though they're all the same).

AFA substantiating ones argument, I'd prefer to hear opinions based on a detailed recounting of experience that can be challenged for some credibility, than to hear facts based on 'findings' that appear to have a reliable source, but can't be found.

[Powderman]

Folks, here's an interesting experiment. If you can get your hands on an Outer's Foul-Out, this will prove invaluable.

Take a barrel that has had nothing but jacketed bullets fired through it. Now, hook up the foul-out, per the instructions. Run it with the LEAD solution. Look at how much comes out of the "clean" bore.

All I will say is this...you must give credit to the manufacturer for knowing their own product. I am an avid reloader and cast bullet shooter; I have fired cast bullets from every gun I own, from bolt action rifles and semiauto pistols to a .45-120 Sharps. There are five guns, however, that I will NOT shoot cast bullets out of: my Garand, my M1A, my AR15's, and both Glock pistols that I own. The Garand, M1A and AR15's are obvious; the Glocks don't get them because the manufacturer said so.

Shoot them in your Glocks if you want to do so--but please keep in mind that it is a personal decision. If the gun malfunctions or blows, remember the decision you made--and do not even think about lawsuits or badmouthing the pistol. You made the choice, you bear the responsibility.

[vladan]

But my cz-82, which came out in 1982, has a polygonal barrel. And CZ didn't seem to have problems shooting lead.

Can't coment on HK or Kahr but CZ polygonal barrel is "true" polygonal barrel - whole barrel has polygonal profile that twist along the barrel, that is why 82 barrels appeares smooth bore. Glock barrel on the other hand has lands that looks a lot like rounded rifling ... I can see how lead might have trouble catching onto rounded rifling like that in Glock while CZ82 just reform lead bullet to its profile shape ...

[JohnKSa]

It's based on the fact that glock is not the "authority" in the matter.

Well, besides the fact that it's pretty easy to support the argument that Glock is an authority in the matter of what ammunition is suitable and unsuitable for their pistols, I'm not asking you to take Glock's word for it. I've given you two other reputable sources that both qualify as "authorities" on the topic by any reasonable use of the word.

So, what part of glocks warnings are because "The Gun will go Kaboom if you use lead"; and what part of glocks warnings are because "We don't want to be held legally liable, and we don't trust everyone to not be retarded with their guns.

Again, you don't have to rely on Glock. There are other sources that will tell you the same thing and in a lot more detail.

Besides, you keep glossing over the fact that while the "no reloads" caution is typical, even you note that the "no lead" caution is not at all typical. Grouping them together as typical gun manufacturer legal CYA obviously therefore doesn't make sense.

AFA substantiating ones argument, I'd prefer to hear opinions based on a detailed recounting of experience that can be challenged for some credibility, than to hear facts based on 'findings' that appear to have a reliable source, but can't be found.

Mr. Passamaneck's pressure data used to be available on the web but I can't find it online any longer. Fortunately that does not mean it is unavailable.

Those who don't believe Gale MacMillan's quote (still available online) and think that Glock is trying to pull the wool over their eyes can purchase and read a book called The Glock in Competition. Mark Passamaneck is one of the co-authors and chapter 1-4 is written by him. It contains a detailed writeup on the problem of lead bullets in the Glock barrel which includes pressure measurements as well as other data he has collected that applies to the issue.

He notes that the same load could cause dramatically different amounts of leading (and therefore dramatically different amounts and rates of pressure increase) in "identical" pistols. For example, one G30 after 75 rounds showed twice the effects of leading as another "identical" G30 using the same load showed after 300 rounds.

Mr. Passamaneck recounts the story of his own blown up Glock. He had shot about 23,000 rounds through it before it blew up. His "exhaustive metallurgical testing" showed that overpressure due to leading was the cause and the result was confirmed by Glock. In the particular shooting session when the gun failed, he had shot 120 rounds through it prior to the failure.

This is a controversy that will never, ever die, and has all the characteristics of an excellent controversy. Religiously-held beliefs backed up in many cases with sophisticated data collected with sensitive instruments (at apparently great expense), yet generally unpublished. What Scientific American once referred to as 'confirmed nonsense'. Inexplicable mystery causes & contradictory explanations, all backed up by experts and first-hand accounts.

You are correct that it will never die but your implications that there is insufficient published data to end the controversy is incorrect. There is sufficient data available to end the controversy, but the bottom line is that people don't LIKE the data because it contradicts what they believe and proves that the course of action they have already chosen, and from which they refuse to be swayed, is unwise.

[drrpg01]

Federal hydrashocks are not a problem for a Glock. There are hundreds of police departments in the country using that combo as we speak.