The Glock Kaboom myth!

[JohnKSa]

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/show...&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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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:




.

[RT]

[shortwave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[FreakGasolineFight]

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]

Oh my God, its an epidemic! Run for the hills! They're blowing up everywhere!

[Mike Irwin]

And that's as good (or bad) a place to end this as any.