Glock Flunks Reliability Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...

If you would take the time to coduct the test yourself then would acheive the same results.

Of course you would not be honest or man enough to post it. Only that your Glock worked perfectly. Balonely. The rest of the shooting public will undoublably try this and verify their own results. W,R.
 
Also, I seem to recall some Greek ammunition a time back that was specifically not to be used in Glocks due to hard primers
Click to expand...

Nice to hear from you again Steve. I think you just proved my point and my point was that the Hammer fired weapons have long been known for better ignition under extreme circumstances.

For the civilian with factory ammo the Glock will shoot just fine but for the person who feels more comfortable with the best ignition system under adverse conditions the hammer system is superior. W.R.
 
W.R., you are assuming that the energy of a 1911's hammer spring (MainSpring), and the energy of a Glock's striker are equal?

It's quite possible that your 1911 has a stronger spring.......earth shattering isn't it?
 
WR - You may have stated this, but I could not find it - what model Glock did you use for the "test"?
Click to expand...

We used two 9mm's the model 19 and 17 and the .45 glock also. It was the full size .45. It is not my gun but I think it was the model 21.
 
You had the same failure with all 3 Glocks? That is, you had a complete failure to fire all ammo with the high primers?
 
1911's make better Ball point Pen launching mortars

I thought incompletely seated primers were "BAD". Slam Fires aren't to much fun, I dont usually enjoy removing brass case fragments from my face and arm. Plus I like my guns in one piece.
Lets see here, you proved that inconpetent reloaders can put nearly unservicible ammo through a weapon with a more robust firing pin spring mechanism. Hmm........... valuable.
Guess what I shoot? 1911's and Glocks. After all the tinkering I've done on 1911 actions I will generally test the series 80 safety and trigger mechanism by placing a ball point pin in the barrel flat top first. When I pull the trigger the pen is generally catapulted about 25 ft from the energy of the firing pin strike. (A good way to test the funtion in your garage) I have also performed the same "TEST" with my Glock pistols. The ball point generally barely leaves the barrel from its striker hit.

Conclusion
Glocks Suck, or 1911's make better Ball point Pen launching mortars carrying a range of payloads about 20-25ft.
 
As someone else said, I question this whole premise. I can't remember the number of times I have seen 1911s fail to fire because of a primer that wasn't seated in the bottom of the primer pocket. I saw it at the Sheriff's Department with the contract reloads we used for training. I saw it at IPSC matches. I saw it at the tactical training matches I put on. I saw it at IDPA matches.

WR says his 1911 not only seated the primer but then (probably on the bounce) ignited the primer. I carried 1911s for 26 years and I just don't believe it.
 
All I know is that I have and do own Glocks, I have and do own 1911's. I have never had any malfunctions with any of my Glocks straight out of the box. Almost every 1911 I have owned needed, at minimum, a good ramp sanding/polishing to function properly. And yet, I still like and carry both. Some people have WAY too much time on thier hands. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Only that your Glock worked perfectly. Balonely

This is true not only glocks are reliable. Sigs, Beretta's HK's and other designs are also very reliable. The 1911 is more finicky overall than these previously mentioned designs. In fact I bet the next jam I see next time going to the range will be with a 1911. I feel confident saying this because most of the jams I have seen have been with 1911's. There are reliable 1911's out there but you must shop carefully for them and sometimes spend even more on them when you get them to make them reliable.
PAT
 
WR

I see you only chose to address one of several points I made in answer to your post. Are the rest forthcoming?
 
Everyone, Take a Deep Breath....

Hello. The "Wild One" seems to've stirred up quite a storm with his statements, but note the following:

He did something some would not regard as safe with the primer thing and I wouldn't have done it, either, but he did and then reported his results.

As I read it, the main thrust of the original post was merely to state that the striker system of ignition does not appear to provide quite as hard of a strike as does the hammer/firing pin system. Certainly, the two could reach equilibrium by raising the power of the striker spring and/or reducing the hammer spring.

Perhaps the engineers and or gunsmiths out there can correct me, but I suspect that when the Glock came out, their designers knew what was required in black and white to meet the Austrian military trials and that would include data on what would be needed to pop their ammo under the worst conditions and Glock saw to it that this would occur. Putting an even stronger striker spring in Glock and I'll bet the trigger pull would get heavier.

Does this mean that the Glock is a "bad" sidearm? Not in my opinion. I much prefer Browning HPs and 1911s to my one Glock, but the gun I carry 24/7 is a Glock 26 loaded with Triton ammo. That's about the highest "stamp of approval" I can put on a handgun. I retired from a 25 year police career in '98 and have been in more than one "tight" situation so handgun reliability in all its aspects is a topic I do take very seriously.

Yet, like WR, I do think that in normal trim, a 1911's firing pin smack is harder than that of the Glock's. On another thread, a fellow kind of making fun of this thread in a friendly way notes that he "launches" a ball point pin further from his 1911 than his Glock.

One fellow states that out of the box, Glocks are likely more reliable. Such as been my experience, too, but as has been noted, a bit of tinkering, either by the owner or a gunsmith will usually solve problems. Whether or not it's "worth it" is up to the owner, isn't it?

One final observation: It's just a gun thread and folks can read and decide what they believe. Glocks, 1911s, whatever, will still likely be available to meet our individual needs.

Best.
 
Mr. Camp,

As I read it, the main thrust of the original post was merely to state that the striker system of ignition does not appear to provide quite as hard of a strike as does the hammer/firing pin system. Certainly, the two could reach equilibrium by raising the power of the striker spring and/or reducing the hammer spring.
Click to expand...

Actually, untrue. Given equal power springs and equal weight firing pins, the hammer system loses energy and increases locktime by having to transmit energy from the spring to the hammer to the firing pin to the primer. The linear striker system removes one of these pieces. Every time you have to transmit mechanical energy from one piece to another, some energy is lost.
 
Hello. What you say is very true about the energy loss, but if the original stored spring energy in the hammer spring is enough greater, then the loss might still result in that system providing the greater force. Just a thought and I do not have the instrumentation nor inclination to prove it.
I just tend to believe from what I'd seen concerning various failures to fire, previously mentioned.

Best.
 
W.R.

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.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the "original version" you refer to was not a linear striker-fired pistol, but an enclosed hammer type, a la the 1903 Vest Pocket .380.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a solid review of a typical Gun Tests magazine article. ;)
 
Wild R, so answer just one question. Why does Glock own 80 percent of the US law enforcement market, and why are about half the guns you see at IDPA and IPSC Glocks? Because Glocks run!
All your 'test' shows is that you can make bad reloads.... and reach flawed conclusions based on invalid testing.
 
Mr. Camp,

Good point. Actually, I think the problem with Glocks and hard primers has more to do with firing pin protrusion; it is minimal on Glocks and almost excessive on the 1911 design. They're almost on opposite ends of the spectrum, and both have their good and bad points.

Also, the typical hammer fired gun uses a larger spring than the typical striker-fired one: since the spring is roughly perpendicular to the bore axis, it can be stuffed down in the handle and made as long as one wants. Good for power. OTOH, long springs are hard to heat treat properly and more prone to breakage or loss of tensile strength than short coil springs. TANSTAAFL.
 
It sounds like the wild Romanian needs reloading lessons so that he can load decent ammo for his Glock. I had the exact opposite results. Our SWAT team go a good deal on a lot of Egyptian 9mm submachine gun ammo with very hard primers. I was the team fire arms instructor and the teams Styer GB 9mm pistols would not reliabily shoot the hard primered ammo. After we were through training, I picked up all of the unfired dud ammo off the range and every round of it fired the first time I tried it in my Glock 17.

7th
 
Wild Romanian, uhh. . I mean Oh Great ONE,

I am most humbled to address thee again:
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.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and tell me I'm not man enough, whatever. I will tell you this, I've never yet had a reload that failed to fire on the first trigger pull. I do not need to admit to making a mistake, because I am smart enough to check my reloads in a go/no go gauge PRIOR to going to the range. If I do make mistakes, I catch them before I endanger myself and the other shooter around me (not to mention the firearms I spend my hard earned money on, most of which are cheap sheet metal pistols by the way). I am also experienced enough to know that primers should be checked PRIOR to going to the range. You are not (where did those 35 years of experience go?).
If you had bothered to read my post I stated "we" meaning we were together at the time. W.R.
Click to expand...
You're initial post stated nothing about "we". Only after Tamara called you on your GLOCK did you introduce the fact that you had a "friend" who conveniently had a GLOCK of that caliber. Interestingly enough you also brought up the different caliber in the second post not the first. Was this not pertinent info then? As I said before, your story stinks.

I am still wondering how someone with your purported amount of experience can end up with high primers in not one, but TWO calibers. This all seems very contrived to me given the circumstances.

How is it that only part of the ammo has high primers? That would seem indicate that at some point during the reloading process you either changed something, or noticed a problem. For one thing, had you noticed a problem a concientous reloader would have examined the produced loads and broken them down or fixed the problem. Most people don't just start adjusting the dies etc. during the reloading process without checking the net effect on the finished product. I'm interested in how all this came about.

I still fail to see how this has any relevance. Most shooters are savvy enough to use good quality ammo. This is only an issue when someone does an extrememly poor job of reloading and an equally poor job of quality control at the bench (hint: this is you).

Shake
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top