While I was pulling up some information on the Glock 19 for the review we just posted, I stumbled across this monstrosity. The pumpkin pie Glock looks to be a rather well abused Gen 3 gun with one of the worst stipple jobs I have ever seen, or are those teeth marks?
The author apologizes for being "a bit harsh" in his criticism.
I say he didn't go far enough.
I've always contended that a Glock was the ugliest gun in the history of gun-making, but this goes FAR beyond!
And I live in a town where the College Colors are "Orange and Black"!
It looks like the new Glock 17M pistols are already experiencing some teething problems with the design changes. There are reports that Indianapolis Metro Police Department has halted issuing the new duty pistol due to problems during dry fire training. The recall comes after the pistols were supposed to be issued on July 31st, but delayed till August 15th due to unknown problems.
It seems as if the slides fall off:
"... that the slides were falling off during dry fire training... "
(Especially disconcerting if you're a LEO and this is your new issue weapon.)
And the Indy Police discovered this "Teething Problems"during "Dry Fire Training"?
I've got a couple of questions about this. But I'm a 1911 guy, so naturally I'm biased (full disclosure) against other designs. My questions are:
GLOCK can fix this within two weeks? A basic design flaw?
Shouldn't this have been obvious during prototype testing?
Glock Engineers DO test prototypes before beginning a production run, don't they?
Did Glock "rush to production" before the new design was tested, just to fill an early order?
I met Dan during my first year of shooting IPSC matches ... back when they had only three Divisions; Stock, Open, and Revolver. And nobody was really sure what constituted an "OPEN" gun, because we rarely saw any that year.
Dan was an 'older' gentleman (probably 55 or so .. which age range I would now consider 'not older'), and he was an experienced competitor. And he knew more about the rules of competition than I did.
Not that he had ever been trained as a Range Officer, but he had been around long enough to call me on it when I put "NEW SHOOTER" on my scorecards on my third match. I admire a man who was willing to call me on my bullshit, although I was disappointed that I could no longer count on forgiveness from the range officer.
So I always tried to squad with Dan, because I knew that I could learn things from him.
REVOLVERS:
The first thing I learned from Dan was that Revolvers were not (in and of themselves) the perfectly functional piece of machinery which we had been trained to believe them to be.
Ever see what happens when you load a revolver with a round that has a high primer?
I remember with a certain amount of schadenfreude watching Dan trying to recover from a revolver which cylinder would not revolve because he had a high primer. It was a simple stage of about a dozen rounds, but it required a reload. Dan had not carefully inspected his ammunition (he loaded his own, obviously) before the match, so when the cylinder locked up after he reloaded the gun during the stage, ... well, did you ever see the Television advertisement for Samsonite luggage? The one where the gorilla bounced all over the cage trying to open the suitcase?
That's what Dan looked like.
He couldn't unload the revolver .. it was in the middle of the cycle, so even though it was a double-action revolver .. he couldn't get the cylinder to swing out. He couldn't advance the cylinder to the next register position, and he couldn't fire the revolver.
He ended up pounding the gun against some kind of standing prop (I think it was a vision barrier mounted on vertical two-by-fours), and then beating it with a rock which he picked up from the ground, and finally dragging out his pocket knife to use as a tool.
I think it took him about five minutes to resolve the problem.
And then, instead of taking a zero on the stage, Dan had the nerve to reload with more ammunition from the same batch and finish the stage. I think his points score was in the low forties, and his time in the high 300's (seconds) in a 60 point stage.
Although I didn't understand the reason for his perseverance at the time, I now think it was that Dan would NOT be beaten. He might not win .. but he would not LOSE!
Glock KaBOOM!
The second time I saw Dan really get into trouble was later that same year. He wasn't shooting Revolver any more, but he had borrowed a Glock in .40 S&W from another shooter and using borrowed (from the pistol owner) ammunition.
You have probably already guessed where I'm going here.
A guy shoots himself in the hand while trying to field-strip a Glock, because of the take-down procedure? Give me a break!
Any one of us can have a negligent discharge. Get out of sequence and pull the trigger on a weapon we think is empty. Like a car accident, it's a statistical possibility.
I especially don't like the Glock takedown procedure for this reason. To take off the slide for cleaning, you pull down two small pins that protrude from the frame just under the muzzle, then pull the trigger.
Excuse me? You have to pull the trigger before completely dismantling a Glock? I was not aware of this. Can someone who knows a lot about Glocks confirm this?
I don't like Glocks because, well, I'm a self-confessed 1911 bigot. I've tried to shoot Glocks from time to time (it's like people who quit smoking ... new Glock owners want to convert you!) but they never fit my hand. I'm sure it's Ergonomics more than anything else, as the grip angle is just enough different from what I have grown accustomed to by over 30 years of competition that I'm too old to change.
But this ... the suggestion that you have to pull the trigger on a Glock before you can complete the field-strip/take-down on a Glock?
That's something else.
So if you have more expertise in Things Glock, I hope you will contribute something in the COMMENTS section.
Because, from where I sit, it sounds like a serious safety issue, if you have to pull the trigger on a Glock to perform a Field-Strip.
When I was in College, there was a saying: "Friends won't let friends vote Republican".
Forty years later, that had changed to: "Friends won't let friends vote Democrat".
Well, people change and so do their politics.
When I was riding motorcycles, it was "Friends won't let friends ride a Honda".
Okay, so maybe not everything changes.
During the past 25 years, I've tried shooting a few Glocks but I just didn't like them. I had been spoiled by the 1911 frame and ergonomics; the Glock fits my hand no better than does a spade. (Or a vacuum cleaner, for that matter.)
However, I do NOT subscribe to the "Friends won't let friends shoot Glocks" meme because ... hey, I'm older now and frankly, I don't much care. You shoot what works for you; I'll shoot what works for me.
In defense of their hoplofilial choice, my Glock-shooting friends often point to the plethora of tests which show that Glocks will continue to perform under any circumstances. Dump them in dirt, throw them in a swamp, your beloved Glock will continue to perform "no matter what".
The video I'm featuring today seems to contend that the "no matter what" contention is as valid as "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
1911
I've mentioned in earlier articles .. years ago, I have no intention of looking up the specific articles .. that the 1911 was designed by John Moses Browning to function under "combat conditions" .. including being dumped in a mud puddle. I don't know how true that is. I haven't tested either my own 1911 (ca: 1918) nor The Beloved Kimber (ca: 1998) nor any of the STI 2011-style pistols I've used in competition. At least, not under "combat conditions".
But these guys (see below) have tested a loaded Glock by (1) pouring dirt into the works via the ejection port, and then (2) dumping it into yucky water "until the bubbles stop coming up". Then they pulled the pistol out, let it drain, and tried to fire it. Actually, it worked fun when just dirty. But when it got wet, it functioned for only a limited time and then experienced several failures to feed, and just plain failure to fire. I think I did hear it go "CLICK" some times, but no joy in the "under any conditions" department when the conditions included moisture.
Full Disclosure: When they had managed to get it to fire several times -- enough to dry it out -- it started functioning with a greater degree of reliability.
You can see the whole thing here. Then you can draw your own conclusions.
I'm not saying that the Glock is a POS ... but they are.
(Sorry, Embedding has been disabled by request of the contributors)
Oh, and BTW, I'm appalled by their casual attitude toward safe gunhandling.
My Friend Gary the T-Man has started out sending (with permission) quotes from a highly respected firearms training facility.
This is one of the latest (November 23, 2011) "quips":
Subject: [Dtiquips] No Free Lunch!
23 Nov 11
No free lunch! This from a Range Officer with a big department:
"We ruined one of our department's G35 pistols (40S&W) last week.
During a range exercise, one of our Deputies experienced catastrophic splitting of the pistol's frame, along with ballistic ejection of the magazine. No significant injury, but the pistol itself is toast!
We found the offending case. It was split its entire length.
We started reloading our own training ammunition a year ago, due to the exponentially-increasing cost of new ammunition. Since, we're had a few incidents, this being the worst.
It seems, with high-pressure cartridges like the 40S&W, expansion during the firing process weakens brass cases far more than is the case with lower-pressure cartridges, and the phenomenon is not confined to Glocks. I suspect this is one reason Glock recommends against using reloaded ammunition, for any purpose!
In any event, we've reluctantly concluded that using 40S&W reloads, even for practice, represents false economy."
Comment: My friend is right! I, along with Glock, strongly recommend against reloading 40S&W, 357SIG, and 45GAP cases, even once. Ruined guns, and personal injury, will quickly negate any savings in ammunition cost.
/John _______________________________________________ Dtiquips mailing list Dtiquips@clouds.com Copyright 2011 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.
I've been bad-mouthing both the .40 Short and Wimpy cartridge, and Glock pistols, for years. (Search this website for the keyword "Kaboom".) Perhaps I have been overly critical.
On the other hand, in the past 10 years most of the "KaBOOM!" events I have witnessed, either directly or immediately thereafter, have involved either a Glock or a .40 S&W cartridge .. usually both, in combination.
A couple of years ago I conceded that this destructive malfunctions, perhaps caused by this combination, have greatly diminished; most probably because Glock incorporated better barrels (Fully supported) in their .40S&W chambered barrels.
Apparently, this has not yet been entirely successful in totally eliminating the "KaBoom!" factor. History:
Two of the primary reasons for the alarming amount of explosions of .40S&W ammunition have been (a) competitors reloading ammunition with very fast-burning powder, which reaches a peak pressure exceeding the ammunition design, and (b) using competition-loaded ammunition in pistols without fully supported chambers.
Relatively recent design/production changes, which incorporated fully-supported chambers in GLOCK barrels, supposedly "eliminated" these problems. It now appears that it has reduced, but not entirely eliminated, that problem.
This "KaBoom!" factor is the primary reason why, when I ordered an STI Edge in 2000, I specified 10mm caliber rather than .40 S&W. The Mighty Ten has a much stronger case than the .40 S&W, especially in the region near the base ... where most "KaBOOM!" events occur because the unsupported case AND the relatively weak case design usually result in explosive detonation.
In ten years of competition, I have never experienced a "KaBOOM!" detonation using a 10mm pistol/case, with a fully supported chamber, after thousands of rounds of major-power ammunition with USED ammunition, loading Vihti Vourhi N320 powder behind 200gr Montana Gold bullets.
Glock and Reloaded Ammunition: Glock has, as the article specifies, ALWAYS warned owners against the use of 'reloaded" ammunition. This article demonstrates why that is a prudent precaution.
Unfortunately, when one is competing with ammunition which can cost approximately $16 per box of 50 (and up!), and expecting to use 'about' 150 rounds of ammunition in a match ... the $45+ cost of ammunition (plus the match fees, travel, etc.) places the cost of competition outside the range of fiscal ability for most of us, except for perhaps one match per month.
Most pistol ammunition is reloadable for $7 to $10 per box of 50 (assuming reasonable retrieval of expended brass), which is sufficient to allow TWO club matches a month, for the same or less price of using factory ammunition. (Probably less for 9mm.)
But Glock says "Do not use reloaded ammunition" for ALL of its products, even the Glock 17.
I agree, the cost of using factory ammunition is FAR less than the cost of replacing a pistol .. or worse, the pain and expense of hospital bills in the worst cases.
Still .... why shouldn't I accept both safety AND economy, if it's available in a different pistol/caliber combination?
Last Saturday, friend Walt wandered down to ARPC to act as "Demonstrator" at the monthly Introduction to USPSA class which I teach for the club.
Walt regularly assists "Iron Fred" at the Tri-County Gun Club "certification course". The purpose of that course of instruction is the same as the ARPC course: to introduce new would-be competitors to the rules, regulations and SAFETY PRIORITIES involved in USPSA competition.
He had asked me last month how I could teach the course in three hours, when at TCGC it requires an eight-hour day to perform the same function. So I invited him to come down and watch the March class so he could witness first-hand how the the class was conducted.
Sometimes Demonstrators volunteer; sometimes they are drafted!
Incidentally, the Demonstrator's function is part of the three-step Theory of Training:
Describe to the students the exercise which they will perform;
Show them what to do;
Let the students perform the exercise.
Walt was doing the 2nd step. And he threw in a lot of unexpected frills, such as multiple failure-to-feed situations which allowed him to demonstrate the "Slap/Rack/Bang" drill.
I still don't know how he managed to get his 1911-style single-stack pistol in .38 Super to jam so consistently! Nice job, Walt.
But I digress.
At the end of the day, Walt and I took a few minutes so he could brief me on his conclusions.
He said that the difference was not so much the course syllabus, format, or style. It was in the experience level of the students who attended the classes.
As soon as he said that, I immediately understood exactly what he was saying. I had the same problem when I first began to instruct the course.
For those first few months, I found that the class was repeatedly and consistently slowed down because so many of the students demonstrated only primitive, if any, understanding of safe gun-handling. Some showed up with brand new pistols which they may not even have fired. (I've already told the story about the student who didn't realize that his brand new 1911 had a safety!)
Still others were suffering from 'beginning shooter' issues: They didn't know how to hold their pistol, they tended to be easily distracted from the serious business of firing a deadly weapon, or they were afraid of recoil of even of the firearm itself.
I had discussed this issue with Club Competition Director Mike McCarter, and we came to the agreement that he would 'filter' the class list. He would insure that they were already trained in Basic Firearms Safety -- either by virtue of having taken the class which is offered at ARPC, or by their own level of personal experience -- before they were allowed to take this "advanced" class.
Apparently TCGC does not perform this function, so the lead instructor (Iron Fred) and his assistants (Walt, and others) never knew what level of expertise they could expect from their students.
A second difference between the two courses is that the TCGC spends the morning (3 to 4 hours) going over the USPSA rule book, and after lunch they adjourn to the shooting bays for another 3 to 4 hours in the Live Fire Exercise.
At ARPC, students are directed to download a manual (written by Mike McCarter) explaining the basics of USPSA competition, covering briefly the safety rules, the practices and the principals of Practical Pistol competition. They complete a simple 20-question test and are required to bring the completed test to the class. That test is the basis for the hour of 'classroom' instruction. The entire class works their way through the test as I re-ask the 20 questions and require some class member to answer the question verbally. Then we take one to 5 minutes to discuss why the question is on the test, define the terms, and branch out to related subjects ... which allows us to both structure the class, and answer questions which may or may not have occurred to the individual student. This process takes only a single hour, most days, although it may extend to an extra half-hour if there are many questions. (This has the unfortunate effect of cutting into the two-hour time allocated for the Live Fire Exercise; I generally offer to stay for an extra half-hour if any students seem to be struggling, or are interested in expanding on the exercises we have taken.)
I'm satisfied that the 3 hour course is both feasible and adequate, if the students are sufficiently familiar and competent with their firearms and the principles and practice of safe gun-handling.
Walt has told me that he will be writing up a report, or a review, of his observations and experience last week, and he will send me a copy to read and comment on before he submits it to TCGC. I do not expect that I will ask him to change the report; I know Walt and I can't imagine him turning in a report which is not factual, accurate, complete and fair. But I'm still anxious to read the report if only to see what his evaluation is going to look like after he has had some time to consider his impression.
-----------
You ask: "Hey, is that it? We expected you to talk about Glocks here, and you haven't mentioned them in the entire article! What gives?"
Right.
After the class was finished, Walt trotted out his new pistol and invited/encouraged me to try it out.
Walt has just bought a .50 caliber Glock! Not just any Glock, but one of those with a short barrel and a silver-colored slide. (Silver Plastic? Or paint?)
Walt knows full well that I am no fan of the Glock; it has been a running joke for over a decade how little love I have for the Glock Pistol. Given sufficient encouragement, I will grudgingly admit to some of the positive aspects of the Glock.
These usually are in the general vein of "That is one UGLY gun!" Or, "how many rounds can you get between "Ka-BOOM! events?"
But in the spirit of good will, and in full appreciation for Walt's contribution to the class, I agreed to shoot a magazine full .... which turned out to be six rounds. (Walt wasn't saying how many rounds the magazine would hold, I assume 9 rounds. See the specifications at the bottom of this article.)
The first thing I noticed was that the trigger was really quite good. I didn't like the 'creep' of the trigger, but it was quite crisp and I assume that with practice one would become quite comfortable with such a long trigger pull.
The second thing was the excellence of the sights. Very crisp, easy to see (they had the little light-green dots on front and rear sights, which helped a LOT; I assume they are night sights). Every shot went right in the center of the A-zone, with no "flyers" at all.
The third thing was that the grip angle was not as 'foreign' feeling to my 1911-spoiled hands. I don't know that it was because it has changed from earlier models I have fired, or I'm mellowing with age.
The fourth thing was that the construction was really rugged! This is a whole hunk of oughta-be metal, even though I know it's mostly polymer, and the grip filled my large hands we enough that I was confident I control the recoil.
The fifth was that the recoil was not as bad as I expected. A little explanation of terms: the actual "felt recoil" ... the gun pushing back against my grip ... was entirely comfortable. I had wondered if the .50 caliber bullet would see excessively punishing, but it was very soft. On the other hand, what I would normally call "muzzle flip" was similar to that which I have experienced when shooting my .41 magnum Ruger Blackhawk Revolver. The Blackhawk , of course, has a single-action configuration which expects that you will soften perceived recoil by allowing the momentum to translate to vertical movement as the slick stocks allow the rotational energy to be ignored. That requires that the shooter re-acquire his grip on the pistol for each succeeding shot, of course.
The Glock didn't slip in my hands, but I had no sensation of the pistol trying to 'twist'. It was very comfortable .... but there was no way I was going to get good split times and still keep the sights on the A-zone. Comparing it to a full-power 10mm load in my STI Edge ... the two are actually quite similar. That Glock ROCKS! ... literally.
Not suitable for USPSA or IDPA or Speed Steel competition? No, not really. But it wasn't as bad as one might have expected from the "Fifty Caliber" designation. Still, it isn't a bruiser, and as long as one avoids anticipation of recoil it's not a bad shooter.
The sixth, and final thing I noticed about Walt's 50 Glock was ... that ever-to-be-cursed trigger safety!
Every shot ... I repeat, every shot ... I took with this pistol hurt. How? That sucker bites; hard.
Somehow, on the recoil (not before the shot) that trigger safety managed to pinch just enough of the skin on my trigger finger between the trigger and the safety. Yes, the recoil is not bad. But I can see how repeated shooting (such as the 150 - 200 rounds fired in a typical USPSA match) would constitute a form of aversion training. That is, one would learn through experience to expect the uncomfortable sensation of being pinch with every shot, and eventually the anticipation of that "punishment" would cause the shooter to react as badly (eg: the "flinch" phenomenon) as fear of recoil.
Arguably, this particular Glock may be an exception. I've fired (often reluctantly) several Glocks and, while I don't care for the ergonomics, I've never been pinched by the trigger safety. I don't know if the trigger assembly has been fitted incorrectly, or it is a design flaw. Also, in full disclosure, I have been suffering from eczema on my fingers for the past two years, and it may be that my skin is just a little thinner than it should be (although the eczema never directly affected the tips of my fingers). Which is to say, I just may be too sensitive; this may not happen to other shooters.
Overall rating, this is just about the nicest shooting, and easiest to shoot, of the half-dozen or so Glocks I have fired, including the 10mm Glock shooting full-power loads, the 9mm, and the .40 S&W. Taking in consideration, of course, that the power factor is significantly higher. Other than the safety, I liked the safety, I liked the sights, and I even almost liked the way it handles.
I just wish I had the foresight to take a picture of the pistol. Maybe Walt will be able to furnish me with one. Depends on how long he keeps it, I guess.
I don't want to give the impression that Glock pistols are intrinsically unsafe, or that the reason why they occasionally blow up [KaBOOM!] has anything to do with the design.
Still, I so wish to provide you with as much information when they Glocks DO blow up.
Here's an example of what the Glock Barrel looks like when it blows up. (Actually, I expect to show several aspects of a "Blown-Up Glock".)
Here is one example of a Glock Barrel after a "Ka-BOOM!" moment.
The accompanying photos don't shot the entire mechanical disintegration, but they are very clear about the consequences.
The owner of the Glock (Fish) was careful to stipulate that three gunsmiths, including a Glock Armorer. found no evidence of a Squib.
Similarly, they found no evidence that the round was "Double-Charged".
So why did the Glock blow up?
Damned if I know.
Fish notes that not only was the barrell effectively distroyed, but so was the trigger group. (He sent this off to a Name Brand Glock gunsmith, and two other Gunsmiths, and the consensus was that the Trigger Group could not be repaired.)
