View Single Post
Old April 2, 2010, 10:54 PM   #74
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,920
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.
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Page generated in 0.03982 seconds with 7 queries