View Full Version : The Glock Kaboom myth!
Super-Dave
May 14, 2010, 07:13 AM
If the so called "Glock Kabooms" are such a problem:
1) For liability reasons would not Glock redisign the G22 or discontinue it?
2) Would police departments and other departments across the nation continue to buy G22's?
For me these two above statements make me think that the G22 is good to go and not to worry.
Am I wrong?
LordTio3
May 14, 2010, 07:24 AM
You'll soon find the inevitable correlation between the high-profile stories of Glocks exploding, and the "like clockwork" footnote at the bottom of the story that said the shooter was using "reloads" in his Glock.
This is how it happens. I'm not saying "ALL THE TIME", but I can say with stark confidence that NEARLY ALL THE TIME this is the culprit in Glock KaBooms. And I'll tell you exactly how it happens.
-Ahem- Bang, Bang, Bang, Boop...
..."Wow. That felt like a squib." -lifts up muzzle a bit to prove without a shaddow of a doubt that everything is fine; meanwhile the powder charge was so small that the bullet never made it down the barrel.
- CLICK - "Wow... guess the action didn't cycle..." -Rack the slide-
"KA-BADA-BOOM!"
The burning powder charge, the bullets making contact, and the compressed atmosphere between the rounds in the barrel all equal a bad day and the gun splits open because the frame behind the open port is weaker than the barrel that's seared shut.
This is how it happens. And it happens with all autos, not just Glocks. Glocks really just get the worst lashing for it because of their "Glock: Perfection" campaign and because of their affinity for incredible reliability.
There is no factory quality control with reloads. That's why if you are shooting reloads, and you have a problem, (Warranty=VOID). Do yourself a favor, shoot reloads at your own risk; but if you do, and you have a poorly loaded round that doesn't function correctly... STOP AND CHECK YOUR WEAPON BEFORE YOU FIRE AGAIN! or you may just loose a finger.
Happy Glocking,
The 22 is a great model.
~LT
Catfishman
May 14, 2010, 07:25 AM
Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
earlthegoat2
May 14, 2010, 07:38 AM
There have also been reports of firing reloads in Glocks with brass that has not been properly resized.
One of the big reasons anti Glockers will point out is that Glocks have the bare minimum of case support at the rear of the chamber which leaves brass with a slight bulge at the rear. Unless this is properly resized with a die that allows the brass to go all they way through it then there is the slightest chance you can have a round fire out of battery.
Supposedly Glock has rectified this problem though and assures us that their guns will no longer fire out of battery to a thousanth of an inch or something like that.
Leejack
May 14, 2010, 07:38 AM
I'll never know.
Double Naught Spy
May 14, 2010, 07:43 AM
The Glock Kaboom myth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the so called "Glock Kabooms" are such a problem:
1) For liability reasons would not Glock redisign the G22 or discontinue it?
2) Would police departments and other departments across the nation continue to buy G22's?
For me these two above statements make me think that the G22 is good to go and not to worry.
Am I wrong?
Possibly so. If Ford Pinto fire risk was real, wouldn't Ford have redesigned or discontinued it?
Would NASA have sent up the space shuttle if temps were too low for the O rings?
Would police departments continue to buy it? Sure. They are offered package deals by Glock. They do the same things with their vehicle fleets as well. Many of the typical police vehicles are not models known for their long term or heavy use durability.
Another thing to keep is mind is who is responsible for the contracts between the police departments and their vendors. More often than not, the decisions are made not by the end users, but by pencil pushing mgmt. Such decisions are often made based on economics.
Hunter Customs
May 14, 2010, 07:46 AM
I personally witnessed two 40 cal Glocks blow up, both shooters were using factory loaded ammunition.
Some thought the barrels were the problem.
I'm not sure what caused the problems, however I've not heard of it happening for a long time so maybe the problem has been corrected.
Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
FreakGasolineFight
May 14, 2010, 07:51 AM
Myth? Not so much.
Some people just don't want to admit that their precious Glock could be flawed in any way.
Mike Irwin
May 14, 2010, 08:55 AM
I saw quite a few Glock .40 KBs in the early and mid 1990s.
With one exception, every one of them was a shooter firing an early production Glock with handloads.
Early Glocks had a somewhat larger than normal area of unsupported case head, and early .40 brass had a somewhat thinner case head.
Combine those two with hot handloads, and eventually something is going to give.
I remember picking up many .40 cases from the range that looked like a small snake had swallowed a very large egg.
Since that time the unspported case head area has been reduced, and .40 brass has a thicker case head. Problem is largely resolved.
vladan
May 14, 2010, 10:08 AM
There is more than one factor to infamous Glock kaboobs
1) generous chamber on older guns with less chamber support to promote reliable feeding - I believe Glock changed the chamber since and now it have more support in 6 o clock.
2) Some of the older Glocks was able to fire slightly out of battery - my G19 second edition would fire af far as 1/8 out of battery, when barrel already linked half way down. My third ed. doesn't do that.
3) Ammo - there is very small space in the .40S&W cartridge for powder charge so every slight setback raise pressure at much steeper rate than larger capacity rounds like say 10mm Auto. This is especially happening with heavy, long bullets - 180grain and more. IIRC setback of .1" raise the pressure two fold.
4) lead bullets - hotly disputed topic but lead bullets do tent to lead polygonal barrel much faster and there is possibility of leading raising pressures to dangerous levels
5) handloads - too fast powder, case not resized correctly, bullet seated too deep, loaded too hot, lead bullets ... all the above points come in play with this one
Most of design flaws was corrected by Glock, but the fact that .40 S&W cartridge require more carefull loading still remains
Sturmgewehre
May 14, 2010, 10:43 AM
It's not a myth, it's a fact.
I say this and I'm a fan of Glock pistols, but I'm also well enough versed in their design to know that certain models (21, 22) are prone to case failure due to a design "flaw" (depending on how you view it).
I shoot a G21 with reloads. I use an aftermarket barrel to avoid "kabooms" which are more likely to occur in my situation than they are shooting factory loads through an OEM barrel. If you shoot lead through a Glock 21 or 22 OEM barrel, you're crazy as it's not a matter if you're going to blow your gun up, but only a matter of when.
Here's why I use an aftermarket barrel:
http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/866718368_TWZBx-L.jpg
Here's another angle:
http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/866718342_2kFNT-L.jpg
The OEM barrel is darker around the case head because the feed ramp isn't polished like on the Lone Wolf barrel so the light isn't being reflected. But you can see a large portion of the case is unsupported in the OEM barrel whereas the Lone Wolf barrel completely supports the case.
This is what happens when the case is unsupported and pressure get too high:
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Forums/guns/Glock/45acp-unsup.jpg
That was actually with factory PMC ammo... which was known at the time for having brittle brass which in Glocks equated to a "kaboom" but worked fine in other handguns.
So, it's not a myth, it's a reality but one that can be dealt with if you're inclined to play things safe.
mete
May 14, 2010, 10:55 AM
The problem for the most part was with the then new .40 S&W cartridge.As a result Glock made some changes and Federal changed dimensions of their ammo and perhaps others. Word was passed about using lead bullets [harder lead and frequent cleaning would avoid most of the problem].
The 40 S&W cartridge is a very fine one and I have used it ever since it first came out. I've never had any problems with my P7.
Another problem is the internet - 20 year old problems are repeated again and again as if they just happened !!! :(
Sturmgewehre
May 14, 2010, 11:13 AM
Another problem is the internet - 20 year old problems are repeated again and again as if they just happened !!!
Total BS I'm afraid.
Here's one from 2010:
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/C2/20100408/NEWS/4080326/Police-handgun-explodes-while-firing
Here's one from 2008:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080313/NEWS/803130481
It has been going on since the 22 and 21 were introduced.
James K
May 14, 2010, 11:32 AM
Glock KB's are not a myth, but the reason is still in dispute. The best evidence is that insufficient case support is at least one cause. Another possibility, that I don't think has been tested, is of a shooter of a .40 pistol accidentally loading a 9mm into the magazine and having it enter the barrel then go forward and not fire. The shooter, thinking the gun failed to feed, puts a .40 behind the 9mm and fires.
FWIW, a bulged or burst barrel is not caused by air compression or the rear bullet expanding. The rear bullet is moving and when it stops all its kinetic energy is instantly transformed into heat, which softens the barrel steel and allows the pressure to burst it.
Jim
madmag
May 14, 2010, 11:52 AM
First, I own a Glock .45ACP.
Glock's and many other manufactures do have differing degrees of un-supported chambers. The main reason is to enhance feeding. The more material you remove in the bottom area the easier it makes for the round to feed. There is a normal pinch point between the top nose of the round and the bottom casing area as the round feeds into the chamber. My Ruger P90 also has a fairly large un-supported area.
So, many semi's have un-supported chambers, and this can contibute to a Kaboom with any gun. Glock does have un-supported chamber area, and Glock sells a lot of guns.:)
LOUcifer
May 14, 2010, 12:38 PM
Some people just don't want to admit that their precious Glock could be flawed in any way.
THAT is absolutely correct sir!!!!!!!!!!
But even Glock itself is too arrogant to admit a design flaw
Edward429451
May 14, 2010, 12:43 PM
You'll soon find the inevitable correlation between the high-profile stories of Glocks exploding, and the "like clockwork" footnote at the bottom of the story that said the shooter was using "reloads" in his Glock.
SO what is the correlation? Is the implication that no one is safe enough to load reloads without blowing up thier guns? Newsflash, Millions of rounds are reloaded and shot without KB's each year. Of course there are a few KB's and not always with Glocks, these are real blunders that are the ammos fault. 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! And to boot, many of the Glock KB's are with factory ammo. How do you explain that?
Simple. Glock pistols are not user friendly. 20 years is enough time to bring a lot of design flaws to the surface. Pity, because I really like Glocks concept. Who don't want a 14 rnd 45?!
Who here has the Glock flinch?:D
It's not anticipation of recoil, it's anticipation of KB with Glocks!:D
Is this the one?:eek:
Ok I'm being facetious but as an end user I can be. I don't need to know the whys of the engineering flaws, all I need to know is that Glocks are very picky about ammo even factory, and more finiky with reloads wether jacketed or lead so they lost my confidence and dollars. I tried to get reloads to work in it and it was very touchy and never did get total feed reliability.
Funny I don't need lab conditions to load good ammo for my 1911. We need to quit blaming the ammo for Glocks problems and put the blame where it firmly belongs...Glock is a poor pistol overall.
ClydeFrog
May 14, 2010, 12:54 PM
In my opine; most of the Glock pistol problems or major issues come from owners not following the Glock mandated policy or manual guidelines.
If a user or Glock owner put the wrong load in or puts the wrong type of after market/custom gunsmith work then that could lead to serious problems.
I was reading over a few posted details of a Glock after market shop that made custom frames. CCR or CCF something. The company advised against metal Glock guide-rods and a few other custom parts. The more I read the more sense it made to keep a NIB(new) Glock pistol factory stock. ;)
The late gun writer/firearms expert Robert Boatman made some of the same points in his book; Living With Glocks, www.Boatmanbooks.com .
I would however, get a NY-1 trigger system on a Glock duty/CCW pistol and 3 dot type night-sights.
As for the Ford Pinto example, I think the LE model Ford Crown Victoria sedans(also called the Police Interceptors) are a better example of US police agencies using a product that has a bad rep or major problems. A few PDs even sued Ford over the PI model's unsafe features. A sworn LE officer in AZ was killed in a traffic stop incident where a vehicle hit him, ruptured the Crown Vic's fuel tank and caused a massive explosion. The safety & design problems Ford had is why many US law enforcement agencies switched to Dodge Intrepid or Charger models or the improved GM Impala sedans. The large city where I live had the police buy 840 new GM Impala vehicles for the police dept. A few LE agencies use the Dodge Charger models or SUVs too.
Clyde
Mike Irwin
May 14, 2010, 12:59 PM
"Glock does have un-supported chamber area, and Glock sells a lot of guns."
But the area of unspported case head in early Glock .40s was much larger than with other guns.
Glock redesigned the barrel to tighten that up considerably after the problems began surfacing.
In the same manner, the ammunition companies redesigned the .40 case.
"You'll soon find the inevitable correlation between the high-profile stories of Glocks exploding, and the "like clockwork" footnote at the bottom of the story that said the shooter was using "reloads" in his Glock."
It's not a footnote. It's was part and parcel to the problem.
The large unsupported area of the case head, in combination with the early, thinner brass design, caused overexpansion and over stressing of the part of the case that wasn't supported.
Even when reloaders kept their loads within the standards established by the ammunition companies, the cases were prone to failure no matter what kind of bullet was being used (lead or jacketed).
kodiakbeer
May 14, 2010, 01:23 PM
Does the name Dean Spier ring a bell here?
He's the guy who did all the original research and wrote a number of informative articles on the subject. He caught a lot of flack for it to (much of it right on this forum), even though he liked Glocks overall. IIRC, it wasn't just limited to the .40, there were examples in other calibers as well.
Why doesn't Glock redesign the barrel? Because that would be an admission of a design flaw (or two if you count the lead slug issue), and they might be forced to recall hundreds of thousands of pistols.
So, don't shoot reloads and don't shoot even factory rolled lead slugs.
RickB
May 14, 2010, 01:50 PM
My buddy's Glock 20 has blown up a total of three times, with me in a ringside seat for the second one; whatever the problem is, it's not confined to the 22. The 10mm case is designed to work in an unsupported (unramped) barrel, but there must be a limit to "unsupported"?
Arub
May 14, 2010, 02:37 PM
"There is no factory quality control with reloads"
I have officiated at monthly steel plate shoots and participated in many USPSA matches over the years and have found several cases of unacceptable set back on factory rounds. Although there may be no "factory quality control" with reloads, the levels of quality control with factory ammo can stand some improvement also. Point being, set back can occur with both factory and home loads thereby increasing pressures beyond acceptable limits.
Elvishead
May 14, 2010, 03:34 PM
Possibly so. If Ford Pinto fire risk was real, wouldn't Ford have redesigned or discontinued it?
Would NASA have sent up the space shuttle if temps were too low for the O rings?
Point?:rolleyes:
I'm getting sleepy!:cool:
Double Naught Spy
May 14, 2010, 05:10 PM
Glock KB's are not a myth, but the reason is still in dispute.\
Very nice statement.
I have been present when three Glocks have kaboomed. Two were .45 acp and one was .40. I know that one of the .45 acp kabooms was with factory ammo. One of the other two kabooms (can't remember which) was due to a squib in the barrel for which lots of guns would kaboom. The last was a reload.
Point?
I'm getting sleepy!
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.
oneounceload
May 14, 2010, 07:32 PM
Maybe these kabooms only happen with 40's?? My 2nd gen 17 I have (since new about 15 years ago) had been fed nothing but reloads made from range-scrounged brass - it has never kaboomed or FTF, FTE, etc.
WvHiker
May 14, 2010, 10:24 PM
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
May 14, 2010, 11:41 PM
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
May 14, 2010, 11:53 PM
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 (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285230) 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 (http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2009/09/lone-wolf-distributors-barrel-for-glock.html), 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.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x187/SargeMO/CaseSupport2-1.jpg
Eagleks
May 15, 2010, 12:18 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 02:47 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 04:23 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 05:00 AM
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.:D
Warchild
May 15, 2010, 07:01 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 07:59 AM
I find it funny how people still discuss this topic.
People still discuss this issue because it is an ongoing issue.
Warchild
May 15, 2010, 08:20 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 08:24 AM
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
May 15, 2010, 10:19 AM
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 (http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/C2/20100408/NEWS/4080326/Police-handgun-explodes-while-firing). The cop who was shooting his G21 that also blew out his chamber and this happened just last month.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Forums/guns/Glock/bilde.jpg
TMackey
May 15, 2010, 11:23 AM
The pic in post 28 is worth a thousand words.
Do you really think Glock changed things for the heck of it?
Warchild
May 15, 2010, 11:51 AM
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.
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
May 15, 2010, 01:56 PM
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/2009/09/lone-wolf-distributors-barrel-for-glock.html
vikingm03
May 15, 2010, 03:35 PM
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 :D
(hope you glock fans can take a joke lol)
drail
May 15, 2010, 03:39 PM
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
May 15, 2010, 04:09 PM
:cool: 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
May 15, 2010, 04:11 PM
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
May 15, 2010, 04:17 PM
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
May 15, 2010, 05:35 PM
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. :p
JohnKSa
May 15, 2010, 09:52 PM
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
May 15, 2010, 10:25 PM
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
May 15, 2010, 10:57 PM
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?
JohnKSa
May 15, 2010, 11:31 PM
I don't really recommend that others follow his example, but here's a guy who's done some testing on overloading pistols including Glocks.
His testing does not indicate any unusual weakness in the Glock barrels. Here's one case where he shot a 25% overload in a Glock 40S&W barrel without any issue other than a bulged case.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3204490&postcount=137
I don't know whether Glock heat treats their barrels or not, but I can tell you that unless you're doing really ill-advised things with your Glock or you are unlucky enough to find an overpressure factory round that the barrels are more than strong enough. Clark's testing demonstrates that for those who are in doubt on the matter.
Sarge
May 16, 2010, 12:20 AM
Glocks barrels are hammer-forged around a rifling mandrel, or so we were told at armorer's school last week. 'Heat treatment' per se could be incorporated in that process somewhere, I suppose, but have no confirmation of that supposition.
Head-Space
May 16, 2010, 12:53 AM
If the so called "Glock Kabooms" are such a problem:
1) For liability reasons would not Glock redisign the G22 or discontinue it?
2) Would police departments and other departments across the nation continue to buy G22's?
For me these two above statements make me think that the G22 is good to go and not to worry.
Am I wrong?
Big RED print in the front of the Glock manual: "Warranty void if the gun is ever used to shoot reloaded ammo."
The KaBOOMs result from an overbored breech, undercut feed ramp and unsupported chamber -- shooting work hardened brass reloads.
Police don't shoot reloads. Glock is fine so long as you shoot NEW ammo.
FEG
May 16, 2010, 12:57 AM
Police don't shoot reloads. Glock is fine so long as you shoot NEW ammo.
I would agree that most PDs don't shoot reloads, but I know the gentleman who reloads practice ammunition for several smaller departments here in SW Indiana. PDs used to shoot reloads quite extensively when revolvers were the norm.
Sturmgewehre
May 16, 2010, 01:26 AM
I hate to break this to you, but most of the kB! Glock stories I read about are from factory ammo.
I've fired hundreds of thousands of rounds in my 40 years of life and I've never once gotten a facotry over charge. I've shot with people with my own level of experience and they have never had, or even heard of, someone blowing a gun up with factory over charged ammo.
But I can find a seemingly endless list of Glock kB!'s using factory ammo.
Mike Irwin
May 16, 2010, 01:37 AM
"Warranty void if the gun is ever used to shoot reloaded ammo."
You'll find that admonition in most firearms manuals.
It's called the manufacturer protecting themselves against events that are totally beyond their control.
LanceOregon
May 16, 2010, 08:01 AM
Easiest solution is to simply buy a S&W M&P 40 instead, as I did.
Its factory barrels are FULLY supported, as you can see in this photo that I took of my barrel:
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s272/lanceJOregon/guns/DSC_0400b_on.jpg
.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/kaboom03tfb.jpg
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/2qtbh3o.jpg
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/92118252.jpg
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/anacondakaboom001.jpg
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/burney071302scofield1ka.jpg
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Kaboom%20pics/dsc00269ai.jpg
shortwave
May 16, 2010, 09:28 AM
RT, Thanks for your pics. A few show's typical sign's of case failure(I.E. the HK pic.) not pistol failure but pics show that you can blow up any gun. Even a Glock.
As long as some Glock owners refuse to believe the warning they get in their pamphlet FROM GLOCK about shooting lead in stock barrels I guess the (as the OP put it) myth will continue.
If something I buy has "extremely flamable" marked on it from the manufacturer, I try to stay away from spark/flame with that product;).
Hunter Customs
May 16, 2010, 11:17 AM
I would have to say the Clark experiment does not really prove much as for the reason Glocks blow up.
It does not explain why Glocks blow up shooting factory ammo. However I would say that if Clark would have loaded ammo with heavier 180 gr bullets and fast burning powders like factory ammo is loaded with, he would have experienced different results.
I know for a fact that the light weight 40 caliber 135gr bullets with slower burning powders can be very forgiving, the pressure curve is different.
I worked up some loads for pin shooting using 40 S&W brass loaded with 40 caliber 135 gr bullets making a 210 power factor, I could not do this 40 caliber 180 gr bullets.
I also have to question if the heat treat was changed in the chamber area of the barrel Clark welded up allowing it to handle more pressure. I did not read any hardness test results of the barrel chamber and ramp area before and after the welding.
I will say giving the barrel more support in the ramp area like Clark did by welding up the barrel is a plus. It appears from the pictures of the ramp area of the new Glock barrels that Glock realized they had a barrel problem, however if their guns are still blowing up then I would say they have not fixed all the problems.
Keep in mind I'm not talking about blowing up Glocks or any gun with bad handloads or lead bullets.
There's several variables in handloads that can blow a gun, double detonation is one of them.
It's been said that double detonation will increase the pressure in a round by four times.
When factory jacketed bullet ammo blows one manufactures guns and not others there's a problem; I don't believe it's with the ammunition.
Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Sarge
May 16, 2010, 11:47 AM
It is worth mentioning that in 90-91, we'd heard none of this 'unleaded only' info regarding Glocks; and the teletypes we were getting from other LE agencies confirmed that they would go 'POOOF-T!!' with new jacketed ammo, too.
So armed with a little knowledge (always a dangerous thing ;) ) we proceeded to shoot literally cases of UltraMax 40/180 lead bullet ammo through our Glocks. I rode the troops to keep their guns clean, we shot full-snort jacketed ammo through those same guns and we had no POOOF-T!! events whatsoever with .40 cal Glocks. They had no better chamber support then than the G23 barrel depicted at left in my pic, a page or two back.
I'm not recommending you do this. I don't know why we got away with it other than the fact that the barrels were scrubbed with bronze brushes, brass screen or whatever it took to keep them clean. Maybe the Good Lord just especially loves crazy people and policemen, given that the categories intermingle so much.
Edward429451
May 16, 2010, 12:18 PM
the Glock design places certain somewhat unusual restrictions on ammunition & reloading.
In todays world this is not a competitive move. Most people do not have common sense or would even heed such restrictions. Gun...bullets...go. Whether approved for Glock use or not. Will companies market Glocksafe ammo? Will gunstores warn people off the wrong ammo if out of GlockSafe? HA!
I'm sorry. I can not have restrictions placed upon my guns in this day & age. Bottom line. Consumer has spoken. Too bad LEO's are forced into them and can not speak up in same fashion.
It seems to me that given todays technology that Glocks could be given a design tweak and made good. Why haven't they been made right? Is that Gaston Glock laughing in the distance? Spending the R&D money on honeys and cars?
JohnKSa
May 16, 2010, 08:18 PM
I would have to say the Clark experiment does not really prove much as for the reason Glocks blow up.
It does not explain why Glocks blow up shooting factory ammo.It doesn't provide all the answers, but it does demonstrate that even with substantially overpressure rounds the Glock barrel is strong enough to hold together and remain undamaged.However I would say that if Clark would have loaded ammo with heavier 180 gr bullets and fast burning powders...There is no question that he could have managed to blow up the gun had he kept increasing the pressure. There are no guns that can't be blown up.I also have to question if the heat treat was changed in the chamber area of the barrel Clark welded up allowing it to handle more pressure.The initial overpressure testing I quoted was NOT done with the modified barrel. It was done with a stock Glock barrel.I hate to break this to you, but most of the kB! Glock stories I read about are from factory ammo.I have no doubt that there are Glock blow ups involving factory ammo, however I think it's important to keep a little perspective.
1. Besides Glock's recommendations, there are other experts who agree that it's possible to blow up Glock pistols with factory ammunition if you refuse to follow Glock's recommendations on ammunition selection. A classic example would be to shoot some lead bullet rounds followed by a jacketed factory round. If there is sufficient lead buildup this can easily result in a catastrophic incident where the round fired at the time of the incident was a factory round. However, it wasn't the factory round that actually CAUSED the incident, the cause was the shooter's decision to ignore Glock's recommendation against lead bullets and other expert's recommendations against chasing lead bullets with jacketed rounds.
2. I think we all realize that, human nature being what it is, that many of the stories supposedly involving factory ammunition really don't involve factory ammunition at all. I was on the scene when a shooter blew up his 9mm Glock. He claimed to be using factory ammunition, but after he left, one of his friends confided that he was actually shooting reloads and that it was his first attempt at reloading ammunition.
3. Finally, as I'm sure we're all aware, even the best factories occasionally let an out-of-spec round out the doors and sometimes even release an entire lot of defective ammunition. Searching the web for ammunition recalls can be an eye-opening endeavor.
Just for fun, here are some reports from an independent testing laboratory on an incident involving Glocks and factory ammunition. The entity requesting the tests SPECIFICALLY asked about the unsupported chamber and its effect on the incident. The response is educational.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/9419-01a.pdf
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/9419-01b.pdf
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/9419-02a.pdf
The bottom line is that when you see significant damage to major structural components of a firearm that overpressure (more pressure than the materials and design can tolerate) is the cause. That may be from an overpressure round (reload OR factory), or overpressure resulting from a bore obstruction (e.g. squib bullet) or partial bore obstruction (e.g. leading in the rifling or just forward of the chamber) or from a significant defect in the materials or in the design of the firearm.
Clark's testing demonstrates that the design and materials in factory Glocks can stand up to significant overpressure without catastrophic failure, so that leaves us with either isolated defects in manufacturing/materials or overpressure events as the cause of catastrophic failures in Glocks.In todays world this is not a competitive move.In today's world it doesn't seem to be hurting Glock that much. I'm sure when it does, and to the extent that it does, they will respond with changes. They're in business to make money just like everyone else and when their design decisions begin to hurt the bottom line they'll make the adjustments they need to maintain their market share.
Hunter Customs
May 17, 2010, 10:22 AM
It would be nice if I'm to be quoted, that everything I said would be in the quote, not just part of what I said.
Now as for Clark's test I believe he claims the stock unmodified barrel to handle increases of 25% above standard loads.
Going back to my statement about 180 gr bullets, if Clark has not loaded the same loads as factory loaded 180 gr jacketed bullet loads and increased them by 25% he has proved nothing about how the Glock barrel handles over pressure loads.
The reason I say this is, when it comes to reloading, pressure curves and pressure spikes is what needs to be a concern, especially in barrels with weak or defective chambers. In general fast burning powders will give pressure spikes, and slow burning powders will give long slow pressure curves.
So if light weight bullets are used with slow burning powders the pressure curve will be long and slow allowing the chamber of the barrel to with stand more pressure.
I also do not recall anywhere in Clark's article where he stated what the actual pressure was of the loads he tested or showed the pressue curves of the loads.
Now when Glocks are blowing up with factory loaded jacketed bullet ammunition and other manufactures guns are not when using the same ammunition, it certainly appears there's a problem no matter how many excuses one wants to use.
If the barrels are the only cause of the failures then design or quality control is the issue, or maybe a combination of both.
I've heard some claim their Glocks fired out of battery, if that's the case it adds a whole new demension to the problem. This could be a key factor as to why some Glocks blow and some don't.
In closing, before anyone takes what I've said out of context I'm not trying to knock Glock guns, if you wish to own and shoot one so be it.
Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
JohnKSa
May 17, 2010, 10:36 PM
Now as for Clark's test I believe he claims the stock unmodified barrel to handle increases of 25% above standard loads.That is what he claimed, but he also provided the specific information that he used to arrive at that conclusion (25% overload, bullet weight of 135gr, Alliant Powder).Going back to my statement about 180 gr bullets, if Clark has not loaded the same loads as factory loaded 180 gr jacketed bullet loads and increased them by 25% he has proved nothing about how the Glock barrel handles over pressure loads.That's clearly an overstatement. A 25% overload with a 135gr bullet may not be as stringent a test as a 25% overload with 180gr bullet but that doesn't mean Clark's test proves nothing. It proves that the stock barrel will handle a 25% overload with a 135gr bullet. That's significant in that we have people on this thread claiming that Glocks might be dangerous with standard pressure factory (non-defective) ammunition. Clearly if they will handle 25% overloads in reloaded cartridge cases they will handle factory loadings too as long as the rounds in question are not defective or overloaded.I've heard some claim their Glocks fired out of battery, if that's the case it adds a whole new demension to the problem. This could be a key factor as to why some Glocks blow and some don't.Firing out of battery will cause a case failure and might cause some damage due to excessive slide velocity but it won't cause the barrel to rupture or the chamber to split. There's no rational explanation of how venting pressure through a failed cartridge case could somehow put MORE stress on the chamber than the same cartridge fired while fully contained in the chamber.If the barrels are the only cause of the failures then design or quality control is the issue, or maybe a combination of both.IF the barrels were the only cause of failures then that would be true. If you had read the independent laboratory reports in the links from TheGunZone you would know that at least some of the time overpressure rounds are the cause. The lab reports indicate that the damage in that incident was consistent with damage due to a double-charged cartridge. I don't know of any pistols designed to stand up to a double-charged round. If you had read my posts you would see that sometimes novice reloaders are the cause.
The barrels may be the cause of some failures but they are clearly not "the only cause".
This is a case of circular reasoning. If one starts with the assumption that the barrels are the only cause of the failures then it's easy to conclude that the barrels are the problem.
It is necessary FIRST to prove that the barrels are the only cause of the failures before it's reasonable to draw conclusions based on that assumption.
JohnKSa
May 17, 2010, 11:00 PM
Just so it's perfectly plain, the Glock kB! myth is not a myth. There have certainly been a number of kB!s with Glocks.
Some of those kB!s are catastrophic incidents due to overpressure or significant isolated defects in the firearm where the gun incurs significant damage to major structural components (ruptured barrel, damaged slide).
Some of those kB!s are simple case failures which won't do any significant damage to the barrel or slide.
Some kB!s happen with reloads.
Some kB!s happen with factory rounds.
Some kB!s happen due to barrel obstructions or partial barrel obstructions.
Some kB!s happen due to out of battery firing.
Some kB!s happen as a result of lack of case support.
I know of at least one well-documented reason (supported by published pressure testing performed by a forensic engineer) why a Glock might have a catastrophic failure when another gun might survive and that reason is barrel leading.
There is at least one reason why a Glock (especially an early model) might have a case failure when another gun might not--chamber support issues.
BUT, the biggest reason that catastrophic failures happen in Glocks is the same reason they happen in any gun--overpressure and/or damaged/defective rounds. And that's got virtually nothing to do with the gun.
The bottom line is that if you're willing to accept the limitations of the design then Glocks will provide a lifetime of safe service, just like any other quality firearm.
Anything manmade has design limitations, and different designs have different limitations. If one refuses to acknowledge the design limitations of a device or pretends that all roughly similar devices have identical design limitations then they're more likely to have unpleasant incidents. Some of those may be simple failures or harmless malfunctions but some can be catastrophic incidents.
Sgt127
May 18, 2010, 07:55 AM
I work for a 250 Officer department. We issue the Glock 35 for uniforms and the Glock 23 for CID. We have had them for 10 years.
We qualify 4 times a year. So, at minimum, we have 250 Officers each firing 100 rounds a year. That's 25,000 rounds. Some Officers shoot a lot more. SWAT shoots more rounds. I shoot a lot more. The range is usually open anytime you want to go practice 50 rounds or so. Its budgeted for each officer to shoot 50 rounds a month for practice. Some do, most don't.
So, in the 10 years, we have fired an absolute minimum of 250,000 rounds of factory .40. Either Speer 180 grain ball or Speer Gold Dot 180 HP. For the first 5 years, the issue ammo was the Cor-Bon 135 GR, a pretty hot load.
We have never had a Ka-boom. Could we have one tomorrow? Maybe. But, with factory ammo, I don't see it being a very major problem.
Hunter Customs
May 18, 2010, 08:23 AM
I've seen a few case failures in my day; the statement made about case failures not doing any damage to a barrel or slide is not true.
There's a thing called gas cutting when a case fails. When gas cutting is severe enough I can assure you gas cutting can cause a barrel chamber to rupture.
Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
WESHOOT2
May 18, 2010, 05:11 PM
I am certain that the vast majority of ALL auto-feeder KBs occurs due to bullet setback.
As always (I hate this part), I been wrong before.........
JohnKSa
May 18, 2010, 09:59 PM
There's a thing called gas cutting when a case fails. When gas cutting is severe enough I can assure you gas cutting can cause a barrel chamber to rupture.Yes, gas cutting can happen. Yes, severe gas cutting can ruin a chamber or perhaps even cause it to fail in the absolute worst case.
However, that's not something that one expects to hear about in the context of a discussion about service pistol caliber autopistols.
But I defer to your expertise. What's the absolute WORST case of gas cutting you've ever seen from a case failure in a service pistol caliber autopistol?
LanceOregon
May 19, 2010, 05:38 AM
Could the reason why we hear about more KABOOM's with Glocks, simply be that more Glocks have been sold than any other handgun?
Could that possibly be the primary factor influencing this?
.
Edward429451
May 19, 2010, 12:28 PM
Glock has not sold more handguns than others. The 1911's been on sale for more than 100 years! Glocks 20 years of brisk sales isn't close to dethrone the amount of sales for the 1911's.
I have no source but I can feel this in my bones. No way glock has sold more than Colt & Colt clones. So you would be incorrect in your assumption ;)
Could it be that the reason we hear about so many Glocks Kabooming, is that so many Glocks ARE Kaboomng? :D
FreakGasolineFight
May 19, 2010, 12:48 PM
Just so it's perfectly plain, the Glock kB! myth is not a myth. There have certainly been a number of kB!s with Glocks.
Could it be that the reason we hear about so many Glocks Kabooming, is that so many Glocks ARE Kaboomng?
All that needs to be said has been said. Let the thread die.
IanS
May 19, 2010, 01:42 PM
Oh my God, its an epidemic! Run for the hills! They're blowing up everywhere!:eek:
:rolleyes:
Mike Irwin
May 19, 2010, 02:23 PM
And that's as good (or bad) a place to end this as any.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.