Glock Flunks Reliability Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
My G19 failed my reliability test too!!

I loaded up some ammo with double and even triple charges. Then I went to the range and let er rip. Damn POS blew up right in my hand! What was Gaston thinking when he designed this thing?

In all honesty WR...your argument is one of the stupidest I've ever heard. Who cares how the glock performed with out-of-spec ammo. I wound't have shot the stuff anyway.

Kel
 
wr - what an utter lack of respect you showed your friend. Did you tell him that you wanted to borrow his gun for an experiment that could have resulted in the destruction of his gun? Did you actually try this crap? If you're really doing this crap, are you telling the people near you you're about to try out for a Darwin Award and they should find a safer place to be than next to your ignorant arse? :rolleyes: :barf:

P.S. There's no hate in this post, just total contempt for stupidity.
 
Your test proves nothing as you should inspect your ammo before you load your mags with it. I would never load any of the crap you reloaded.
PAT
 
That's funny

Dawg23,

I nearly cried from laughing when I read your post. Years ago my folks had a Pomeranian that would always attack my then GF. She took to calling it Wild Pomeranian. Your post brought back some pretty funny memories. Thanks. :p
 
Congratulations, you created a completely contrived test, applicable to only YOUR GUNS, that says absolutely nothing about the general characteristics of either 1911s or Glocks.
 
I'm thinking it's not the guns' headspace that needs to be checked...

But a headspace check definitely DOES need to be performed... :D
 
WR is one of those old timers who thinks the only real pistols are designed by John Browning. Get real, man. You need to join the rest of us here in the real world. There are plenty of great designs out there, including the GLOCK.

Doing stupid, dangerous experiments doesn't make you look like the smartest person in the world either.

Now WR is going to reply with 75 more posts to this topic. Are you trying to increase your post count or something?:rolleyes:
 
Hello. I'm not one to say whether or not WR's experiment was "contrived" or not and am not taking sides, but am stating only that which I've personally observed and believe to be true.

Hammer-fired firearms do tend to impart more force to the firing pin. Examples that I've seen:

US Military .223, which has a "hard" primer to insure that the rare slam-fire from the M16, which has no firing pin spring, does not occur will occassionally not fire when being used in my bolt action .223, which has been utterly reliable with commercial and handloaded ammunition. Primed an empty case with one of the few CCI military primers I have and again, no ignition. Replace with a standard CCI small rifle primer and it goes. CCI primers even in their standard, civillian form are "harder" than Federal, Winchester, and Remington.

While shooting S&B .45 ACP ammunition, a buddie's Glock experienced a very, very small failure rate to fire the rounds, yet all of the rounds fired when shot from a 1911 that had a full power mainspring. One of the S&B rounds did NOT fire from either gun and didn't have much more than a scratch on it's very, very hard primer.

Also, I seem to recall some Greek ammunition a time back that was specifically not to be used in Glocks due to hard primers.

I am not knocking Glocks; there's a loaded G26 in my pocket right now, but I do not personally believe that they smack the primer as hard as a hammer-fired weapon.

Each and every weapon design has some "weak" point, but this never really needs to be one with the Glock. I've never seen a failure with a properly sprung Glock using commercial factory ammunition for defensive purposes and I 've fired so many handloads through mine with nary a stutter that while a failure to set off the primer CAN occur, it's very unlikely.

Best.
 
I think extra power striker springs might help this problem.

WR, you or your friend did replace those ancient striker springs when you replaced your ancient recoil springs didn't you?
 
1911 fails the reliability test when some idiot puts a 40sw round in one chambered for 45 auto. Better junk the whole gun. On a side note some idiot did accidently put 9mm rounds into my sig 239 in 357 sig and amazingly it worked. I did not notice he was firing 9mm until I went to pick up the brass and it was all bulged.
PAT
 
KIDS

Don't try anything like this at home.

Moderators, WTF? The polls on our favorite clothes pins don't use up enough bandwidth?

Regards.
 
zanthope had pretty much summed up the data.

From the orignial post, the only conclusion that can be ascertained from the exercize is that a Glock will not function properly with poorly assembled reloaded ammunition. A 1911 with new springs might function properly with poorly assembled reloaded ammunition.

To eliminate the possibility of failures to fire, use ammunition properly assembled.
 
Hello, Absolom. Don't know if your reference to rifles originated from this thread or something else posted by Wild Romanian, but if it is the former, those were my comments and not his.

Good shooting and best.
 
Folks, let's keep the posts bashing or otherwise criticizing any member to a minimum - namely zero. Criticize his conclusions, theories, or statements all you wish, but not the member himself. To do so is strictly against TFL policies, both written and unwritten.

Personally, I don't think Wild Romanian's actions even remotely resemble a true "reliability test" of either gun for reasons which have already been stated by several others.

WR - You may have stated this, but I could not find it - what model Glock did you use for the "test"?
 
Saying that a striker, which is a spring launched firing pin, can't work as well as a firing pin launched by a hammer launched by a spring is ridiculous. It's the same damn thing. If anything, the hammer introduces an extra part. Since when is more complicated better? Didn't Browning design striker guns as well? Was he on drugs in those periods
Click to expand...

Yes he did design striker fired weapons. To back and read my original post in its entirety and you will find that he found that the striker fired variation of the 1911 was not as reliable.

Now think about it. The falling hammer powered by a very lage and powerful mainspring, far larger than the spring found in all striker fired pistols is a much more reliable system. Any junior engineer or person with any mechanical aptitude can readily see this for himself. It is rather self evident once you obersever both systems and how they are constructed.

The dominate form of military pistol has been the hammer fired weapon and for good reason the highly educated engineers of the early part of this century were well aware of this. They were also producing many striker fired pocket pistos but wisely chose not to use this sytem for large powerful and need to be utterly reliable military pistols.

Argue with them if you disagree with me. I think they knew just a little more than the rest of us myself included. W.R.

To bad todays engineers have learned little or nothing from them. W.R.
 
WR, I've been reloading for about six years now and I've yet to load any high primered ammo that I haven't caught before going to the range
Click to expand...

Unlike you I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake. You are not. Anyone who has been reloading for long time knows that sooner or later you can and will fail to seat a primer all the way down.

Your statment is not believeable in my book. W.R.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top