Gen 1 Glock 17 with 348000 rounds fired

[Spats McGee]

I think it's perfectly fine to question the validity of an image or a post. In this day and age, it's just too easy to photoshop or otherwise fake an image. Many are the posts where one poster here at TFL has asked another poster to provide a link or other reliable source for information. It's one way that we separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of internet rumors around here.

Squabbling over it? Not so fine.

[Gaerek]

What I've learned from this post:

No matter what, some people will hate Glocks. Glock could make a gun that is functionally perfect (not saying they have, because they haven't...but show me one company that has), and these haters will come on saying that the Black color Glock uses is the wrong shade, and should be closer to an M&P/XD/PPQ/SR/whatevertheirfavoritegunis.

Once again, another post where BTF is "proof" that Glocks suck.

Either way, this is an astounding test, and at least proves the haters from the early days, and their claims of "it's just Tactical Tupperware."

[Wreck-n-Crew]

But really, and I apologize if I'm wrong. But your post before that last one. Tells me even if you get the answers you want. You still won't want to believe it and continue going on about it being "wrong".

You must have read it out of context....read the line that "he has me lying"...
like what i was saying about hating Glock's comment, i was lying!

See it was pun...not intended.lol

I know you love Glocks and many do, im trying to get to the truth while walking on eggshells here.

I actually know the company, all the details are correct, and it would make no sense at all for anyone to fake that document.

Makes since to me to hype sales!
All i need is the name of the company.
What is the name of the ammunition company?

I have a few minutes to see if they claimed this publically. Thats what i am trying to find out. If they went public to the press themselves (not someone else) it makes it more believable.

I'll do my best to bust it or prove it.

[Gaerek]

The name of the ammo company was listed the original post...

By the way, the level of evidence provided in this thread is about the highest level you're likely to find online for any claim. You're trying to get blood from a stone now. You have a properly formed business letter. You have connections between the ammo company and the Austrian Army (who use Glocks). You have German speakers, speaking to the authenticity of the translation. It's also dated years before it was popular to place tests/claims of this nature online.

There's really no reason for this to be faked, and if it was, they went through an awful lot of trouble for almost nothing. And a quick google search comes up with nothing from the ammo manufacturer saying they never ran that test...so if it was a fake, it would have had to have been done by the manufacturer of ammo...and again, there's no reason for them to do it.

[Tactical Jackalope]

That's officially it....i hate Glocks now.
Someone is evidently spending too much time trying to prove the Glock is the best weapon ever myth.
It's ugly, the sights suck, the grip sucks, the brass to the face sucks, the Limpwrist issues suck, the myth sucks, and you have me standing here lying too!
Now go to bed young man, get off the calf-pow and energy drinks and reload me some ammo so i can shoot a half million rounds Trhough a jenning/jemenez and prove it's the best gun ever!

PS don't tell your mother or else!

I meant this post.

[PSP]

Count me as a skeptical "doubting Thomas" where substantive claims are made on the internet. In this case however, there seems to be more than enough backup to give the claim due credence. IMHO, this is how the internet should work. Good thread. Impressive results. Of course had they used a HK, then they would have shot a bazillion rounds.

[Gaerek]

Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical of almost everything I read online. But there's a point where there's enough evidence present that it's highly likely to be true (or false, depending on the claim, I suppose). I believe that the level of evidence in this thread is far beyond that threshold.

[TunnelRat]

No matter what, some people will hate Glocks.

There are haters of every brand, no one brand has a monopoly on hate. Idc what brand this post was about, I'd be skeptical regardless.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

It's ugly, the sights suck, the grip sucks, the brass to the face sucks, the Limpwrist issues suck, the myth sucks, and you have me standing here lying too!

The comment Refers to me lying about the comment "It's ugly, the sights suck, the grip sucks, the brass to the face sucks, the Limpwrist issues suck, the myth sucks,"

That's what i was trying to say about the context.."and you have me standing here lying too!" comment was meant to be and "now i am telling lies"

Maybe i could have worded it for easier reading, but ask yourself what i was refereing to in the "Standing here lying" comment.

I never meant it as a slight.

[Gaerek]

There are haters of every brand, no one brand has a monopoly on hate. Idc what brand this post was about, I'd be skeptical regardless.

I agree with you. I think my post was more directed to the people that wanted more evidence than what was provided in the thread. The level of evidence provided in this thread is beyond the level of evidence you typically see online.

"My friend's great great grandfather's 1911 from WWI hasn't been cleaned since 1919, has had 534,867 rounds through it, half of which were his specially loaded Wadcutters and he's never had a malfunction!"

(Yes, the above was obviously made up, and a bit rhetorical to boot).

That's what's typically involved in an extraordinary claim online...and of course, all the proof we apparently need is his friend's word that it's true. The fact that we have a letter from the ammo company with the signature of the engineer who helped perform the test is strong evidence for the extraordinary claim made in the thread...far more than what we usually see online.

[9mm]

So its a smooth bore now, isnt that illegal?

[TunnelRat]

I agree there is more proof than normal.

But that doesn't convince me, I'm a die hard cynic. I have loads of questions. My first question would be why? Why so much ammo through this one firearm? Was it simply a test firearm, as they are an ammunition company, and that is the number of rounds that have accumulated over time? I'd love to see it too.

Anyway, I believe it's possible.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

What was the name of the Company it was sent to?

Need it for the research.

Also was it adressed to a person in the second company and if so did it give his name?

Reread the post here and couldn't find it.

[Gaerek]

What was the name of the Company it was sent to?

Really? It was in the OP, and it has been mentioned several times in the thread. Here:

Dear gentlemen!

The hereby rendered weapon Glock 17 number AC 428 has been strained with 348'210 rounds during functional and endurance firing.

The firing has been done exclusively with Hirtenberger ammunition. The following types have been used mostly: 65% 30% 5%

Up to the mentioned number of bullets after which the barrel lacerated, no gross errors have occured.

The firing pin spring and recoil spring have each been replaced once.

The weapon would be fully functional again if fitted with a replacement barrel.

We remain with our best thanks for your obligingness sincerly yours

Hirtenberger incorporation

Does that help?

I agree there is more proof than normal.

But that doesn't convince me, I'm a die hard cynic. I have loads of questions. My first question would be why? Why so much ammo through this one firearm? Was it simply a test firearm, as they are an ammunition company, and that is the number of rounds that have accumulated over time? I'd love to see it too.

Anyway, I believe it's possible.

Sure there are questions, and without having the actual engineer hand me the physical letter saying "Yes, this is true." and then showing video of all 300,000+ rounds being fired, there is certainly room for it being a fake.

As far as what I'm used to as "proof" on the Internet, I'm satisfied. And not just because I'm a Glock shooter...I'd accept it for anything.

[Spats McGee]

Just out of curiosity, I googled "Goluch Karl-Heinz." I got a hit off of LinkedIn for a Karl-Heinz Goluch. I logged in to investigate: "Sales Manager bei Hirtenberger Defence Systems." However, it only shows him as being in that post since 2006. However, there are several plausible explanations for that.

ETA: If I'm reading the letter correctly, it was sent to Glock, with the address in the upper left corner of the letter.

[Gaerek]

That very well could be he didn't list a "start" date, and Linkedin used his "sign-up" date?

Doing a quick search, I've seen this test mentioned several times prior to 2006 also, which would indicate an error (either user or Linkedin) in the date of the profile.

Doing that search though, I did learn that Hirtenberger ammo is considered hot...at the very least, hotter than standard pressure 9mm.

EDIT: Oh, thought of another possibility. That could just be the date he started in the position of sales manager? Considering the letter claims he's an engineer, that seems reasonable that he started off as an engineer, and now he works in sales?

[csmsss]

I dislike Glocks. Intensely. Not telling anyone else not to buy them, but merely stating my (substantial) preexisting bias.

I will take them at their word that they fired 350,000 rounds through an exemplar pistol. Though we don't know how many other examples they tested that didn't quite last as long as this, let's just assume that it is typical of the breed.

My question is...so what? Why is it important? And do we know that no other similar pistol is capable of the same performance?

Does this change any of the characteristics of this pistol that critics like myself find objectionable?

[Skans]

I have a 20 year old Glock 17. Glocks can take lots of abuse. Glocks last forever. Mine is no exception. I am not a very accurate shooter with my Glock. My Glock is ugly.

CONCLUSION:

Everyone should have at least one Glock, even though they are butt-ugly and you may not be able to hit anything past 50 feet with it.

[Gaerek]

My question is...so what? Why is it important?

Really?

So the actual test is well beyond practical usage. It's still interesting. I don't know of many guns that have been through that type of test before. No one is saying other guns can't do that. But it's rare to see that type of test conducted, and the results are surprising to many people, even those that can attest to the reliability of Glocks.

You admit you hate Glocks, so your post is incredibly biased. I have no idea what your prefered gun is, but I'd imagine if a test like this was done with your gun, you wouldn't have made a post like the one you made.

Your post reads like this:

"So what? I hate Glocks, and nothing will change that."

Honestly, it makes you look petty. No matter how you feel about the gun, assuming it's true, this is an incredibly impressive function test. I'd feel that way about ANY gun. But I sure wouldn't make a post dripping with so much loathing and pettiness.

[Spats McGee]

It could also be that the Karl-Heinz that I found is actually Karl-Heinz, Jr. Like I said, there are several plausible explanation. My first thought was simply that Karl-Heinz might not have been a young man when he wrote the letter. That would explain a somewhat incomplete LinkedIn profile and only 5 connnections.

No, cmsss, that doesn't change the physical characteristics of Glocks, nor does it have any impact on whether another pistol could perform up to the same standards. Is there still some wiggle room under which this could be a fake? Sure, but it has more credible-looking evidence behind it than internet hoaxes tend to have. You're still not required to like them, though.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Goluch Karl-Heinz sent it from Hirtenberger ammunition to whom, and was it the Hirtenberger incorporation or was it to someone else ?

It was stated previously between the two companies, not divisions. Big difference when coresponding.

I'll go with what i have (very little for the quest).

Don't asume i have anything but reguards for the truth and that is it alone.

I believe there lies the possibilities of accomplishing such goals in a modern handgun....i just want to know if it's been done. So here we go...wish me luck!

[Spats McGee]

To my eye, it looks like it was sent by Goluch from Hirtenberger to Glock. Perhaps simonrichter can confirm if my memory of how Europeans address letters is correct.

[csmsss]

@Spats - though I don't in any way care for Glocks, I'm not suggesting this is a fake. My point was only that choosing a firearm merely because you could run a bunch of rounds through it before it breaks is, perhaps, not the wisest selection methodology.

[Spats McGee]

cmsss, I'll be the first to admit that I've never wanted to like Glocks. The truth of the matter is that I only need for a firearm to run 1 more round than I will ever fire through it in my lifetime. But I need for it to run that # of rounds reliably. While a 348,000 round lifespand in a Gen 1 G17 is not an absolute predictor as to what I might expect, for example a Gen4 G26, to do, it does tell me that Glock's engineers have done something right. That something might not be grip angle, it might not be grip shape, but something has been done correctly. Does that preclude other firearms from accomplishing the same thing? Absolutely not.

[csmsss]

Really?

Yes, really. Why is a single test of a single pistol which proves only that a bunch of rounds went through a single barrel so conclusive of its superiority?

So the actual test is well beyond practical usage. It's still interesting. I don't know of many guns that have been through that type of test before. No one is saying other guns can't do that. But it's rare to see that type of test conducted, and the results are surprising to many people, even those that can attest to the reliability of Glocks.

Perhaps it's rare to see tests like this because it's not the most important priority for most firearms purchasers?

You admit you hate Glocks, so your post is incredibly biased.

I said that at the beginning - but it's irrelevant to my question - which is, specifically - so what? Why does this matter? Will any but a rarified few EVER put anything like this amount of ammo through their pistols?

I have no idea what your prefered gun is, but I'd imagine if a test like this was done with your gun, you wouldn't have made a post like the one you made.

If it matters to you, I'm a 1911 guy. Since there are so many different manufacturers of 1911-style pistols, it would be impossible to execute such a test and draw any supportable conclusions from it.

Your post reads like this:

"So what? I hate Glocks, and nothing will change that."

That's your opinion. I guess what you're suggesting is that anyone who challenges the party line with respect to Glocks cannot have an informed opinion and should not dare to express it.

Honestly, it makes you look petty. No matter how you feel about the gun, assuming it's true, this is an incredibly impressive function test. I'd feel that way about ANY gun. But I sure wouldn't make a post dripping with so much loathing and pettiness.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not terribly concerned with how you or anyone else perceives me, nor do I need your permission to express my own opinions and attitudes. Pretty sad you have to deflect everything you disagree with into a personal attack on me.