I guess it's a good thing that the Glock is not DA, otherwise not only would it not fire due to the fundamental inadequacy of the striker and then blow up due to its inherently dangerous unsupported chamber, but it would be "astronomically" impossible to hit anything with it, too, what with that impossible to master long trigger pull and all.
Glock Flunks Reliability Test
- Thread starter Wild Romanian
- Start date
- Status
glockorama
New member
Gadzooks!
Marko Kloos
Inactive
I'd still like to know why WR owns not one, but two specimens of a handgun he deems to be inadequate. Dunno about you, but I have better things to do with my money than to blow $800-plus dollars on something I don't like, when the same money can get me a pretty fine 1911 or Browning HP.
On close examination, none of WR's stories seem to jive. We have dissolving Glocks, a whole batch of high-primered ammo in two calibers which finds its way off the reloading bench onto the range without being noticed, stacks of Glocks that won't even feed ball ammo, and magazines out of two Glocks that hit the sidewalk and disgorge their contents on the same day.
What color is the boathouse at Hereford?
On close examination, none of WR's stories seem to jive. We have dissolving Glocks, a whole batch of high-primered ammo in two calibers which finds its way off the reloading bench onto the range without being noticed, stacks of Glocks that won't even feed ball ammo, and magazines out of two Glocks that hit the sidewalk and disgorge their contents on the same day.
What color is the boathouse at Hereford?
Unprimed cases?!! I missed that the first time through these posts.
I just tried the same experiment with a 1911 and unprimed cases. All rounds failed to fire! You should have seen the look of surprise on my face. This is the first time the trusty old 1911 failed to fire. I couldn't make it to the range (my backyard), so I performed the test while watching the World Series. Seemed like a safe thing to do.
Before WR responds to lendringser, he did say he loaded the ammo for the Glock tests incorrectly on purpose.
[Before you send in those cards and letters - of course I didn't try the "reliability test" at home.]
I just tried the same experiment with a 1911 and unprimed cases. All rounds failed to fire! You should have seen the look of surprise on my face. This is the first time the trusty old 1911 failed to fire. I couldn't make it to the range (my backyard), so I performed the test while watching the World Series. Seemed like a safe thing to do.
Before WR responds to lendringser, he did say he loaded the ammo for the Glock tests incorrectly on purpose.
[Before you send in those cards and letters - of course I didn't try the "reliability test" at home.]
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
I think this thread may have just described one of the most retarded "Gun Tests" that TFL has ever had the dispeasure of hosting.
One: Every round I ever reloaded had the primer fully seated in propper manner. This was not because I am lying - this is because I was paying attention to one critical and totally obvious step in the reloading process.
Two: If I could roll good reloads when I was much younger, then any adult worth his salted peter could do it better.
Three: Upon seeing an improper load, the loader then continues to load that round and try to fire it... This is a NO GO. Should this have happened on my range the shooter would be dismissed. This shooter has just commited a dangerous act. Utter foolishness. Better he had entered a Hell's Angels bar in Sturgis and yelled out something insane like "Hogs SUCK! Hondas RULE! Tattoos are for pansies overcompensating for flacid members!"
Four: This act was done with a "Friends" pistol. "Hey Tamara, can I borrow your motorcycle? I want to test a few things! Like seeing if I can jump 4 school busses with it!" Contemptable.
Five: A striker fired 1911? Show me. I've NEVER seen one. BullShift.
Six: This thread has absolutely no point. This test only tests one or two pistols against another. It does NOTHING to test the designs of the actual pistols. For someone who is playing at being intellectual, one would think that they would try to use the "Scientific Method" and make an attempt at the use of control groups.
I smell Troll. I hate Trolls.
One: Every round I ever reloaded had the primer fully seated in propper manner. This was not because I am lying - this is because I was paying attention to one critical and totally obvious step in the reloading process.
Two: If I could roll good reloads when I was much younger, then any adult worth his salted peter could do it better.
Three: Upon seeing an improper load, the loader then continues to load that round and try to fire it... This is a NO GO. Should this have happened on my range the shooter would be dismissed. This shooter has just commited a dangerous act. Utter foolishness. Better he had entered a Hell's Angels bar in Sturgis and yelled out something insane like "Hogs SUCK! Hondas RULE! Tattoos are for pansies overcompensating for flacid members!"
Four: This act was done with a "Friends" pistol. "Hey Tamara, can I borrow your motorcycle? I want to test a few things! Like seeing if I can jump 4 school busses with it!" Contemptable.
Five: A striker fired 1911? Show me. I've NEVER seen one. BullShift.
Six: This thread has absolutely no point. This test only tests one or two pistols against another. It does NOTHING to test the designs of the actual pistols. For someone who is playing at being intellectual, one would think that they would try to use the "Scientific Method" and make an attempt at the use of control groups.
I smell Troll. I hate Trolls.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
Tamara some of your theories are very amusing but they bear no realtion to reality at all. I have never in my life experienced a main spring failure with the colt-browning type weapons or had them become weak and cause a misfire. Some 1911's have been left loaded and cocked for as long as 20 years and then when they were fired they still worked as they should. Surely if your theory had any validity the main spring would have broken or become weak causing endless misfires. Come on get real and face Historical facts.
Anyone with any common mechanical sense can see that the huge main spring of the Colt Browning type is far more powerful than the skimpy spring of the striker fired glock.
AS Steven Camp alludded to, the simple pencil trick will show even the most ardent disbeliever how much more powerful the hammer fired weapons are in relation to striking engergy.
Do you really think that for the last 100 years that the major nations of the world would not have switched over to the skimpy striker fired spring type weapons if their had been any advantage to them. The facts are the stiker fired weapons have been with us as long as the hammer fired weapons and the hammer fired weapons have long been known to be absolutely superior to the striker fired weapons. The world's military pistols all reflect this in their designs.
Let's face it if I had been in a serious situation with both my 1911 with its defective ammo It would still have fired with no problem. I proved this without a shadow of a doubt. I shudder to think what would have happend to me if I had tried to rely on the Glock unless of course I would have had commercial ammo loaded without any imperfections.
I think Stevens post about the Glock failures with some military ammo says it all.
Just when did you ever hear of a 1911 failing to fire with any ammo, commercial, military or even my screwed up on purpose reloads.
Seriously Tamara this test even shocked me because I thought that the 3 Glocks tested would have had no more than a 50 per cent failure to fire rate. I never dreamed that they would all fail to fire 100 per cent and I also never dreamed the 1911 would fire all this ammo 100 per cent with no problems.
AS I go through life John Brownings Genius never ceases to amaze me. I keep wondering how in the hell that a pistol that was designed almost 100 years ago still makes all the other military and police pistols look like a bad joke in terms of reliabilty, ease of maintenace, accuracy, aesthetics, safety and balance and pointability. It falls short in none of these catagories but you surely cannot say that about the rest of the competition. W.R.
slickpuppy
New member
Wheres the love? 
Wild Romanian
Moderator
To Shake
Shake you can attack me personally all you want . But the serious people out there can duplicate the same test that I constructed with primed cases. The results will be the same.
No amount of smoke screening by personally attacking me will change the fact that striker fired weapons are less reliable. I proved that without a shadow of doubt.
And the eloquent and honorable post by Steve Camp also proved the Glock failed with some military ammo that had hard primers.
I really do not know how much more proof you people want before the dim light bulb begins to light up in your heads. W.R.
Shake you can attack me personally all you want . But the serious people out there can duplicate the same test that I constructed with primed cases. The results will be the same.
No amount of smoke screening by personally attacking me will change the fact that striker fired weapons are less reliable. I proved that without a shadow of doubt.
And the eloquent and honorable post by Steve Camp also proved the Glock failed with some military ammo that had hard primers.
I really do not know how much more proof you people want before the dim light bulb begins to light up in your heads. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
This quote is from the Honorable Steve Camp . It is his personal experience with these two pistols.
Now I seriously ask all of you this question. Suppose Stephen or anyone else had been in a life and death situation. I personally sure as hell would not have wanted to experience the Glock failure mentioned when I needed it most to save my life.
No thanks I'll play it perfectly safe and use a 1911. They don't fail frequently as the Glocks do.
I used to actually carry my Glock 19 in an in the waist band holster but after this test I have decided never to carry it again. I just cannot take chances with my life with a striker fired Glock. W.R.
Good Lord! Let me put you on line with the gentleman who needed a new mainspring in his Colt last week! We thought it had been poorly tempered (happens occasionally) but you can tell him it was just his imagination.
If you knew how springs worked, you'd realize that keeping one under continuous tension does not damage the spring. Repeated compression and extension is what wears springs. This is also why the magazines of 1911's (and every other weapon on God's green Earth, for that matter) have been left loaded for years with no damage to the spring.
I don't just face historical facts, I face real firearms problems every day at work. When you work in a gunsmith's shop, you'll change your tune.
I believe I mentioned that in a post above. This is because it is huge.
The main reason the pencil trick is so much more spectacular with 1911's than with most any other hammer-fired gun is because of the 1911's excessive firing pin protrusion; one the lesser-known weaknesses of the great design. Remind me to tell you about it.
I'm pretty new to handguns, so I have a question. How can failure to fire faulty ammuntion be considered a failure? I Don't have a Glock or a 1911 and I only shoot factory ammo right now. But even that I inspect before I shoot. If I saw a round like the ones you fired, they would be in the trash.
I doubt I'll ever be able to afford it, but I would like to own a Glock someday. Your test did nothing to change that. Now if this was good ammo and you had these results or similar, I'd reconsider. But not shooting garbage ammo is not a bad mark to me. I'd also like a 1911 someday. But that dang money problem always gets in the way
Mike
I doubt I'll ever be able to afford it, but I would like to own a Glock someday. Your test did nothing to change that. Now if this was good ammo and you had these results or similar, I'd reconsider. But not shooting garbage ammo is not a bad mark to me. I'd also like a 1911 someday. But that dang money problem always gets in the way
Mike
Marko Kloos
Inactive
It works like this: You don't like a particular design or make of handgun. You focus on one aspect of that design you find inadequate, and make up a test which "exposes" that particular "design fault". You then present your newfound evidence as immovable truth, and call people who disagree "technically inept", and "dim bulbs", even if the "evidence" you've presented is contrary to the cumulative experience of virtually all seasoned handgun shooters present.
It's rather like claiming Mickey D's coffee cups to be faulty, because one can drop a cup in one's lap and consequently get burned. Therefore, the styrofoam, plastic-capped coffee cup is infinitely inferior to the tried-and-true tin cup for everyday coffee consumption.
Oh, welcome to TFL, by the way! This place is, without a doubt, the best resource for firearms knowledge on the Internet, and the vast majority of folks on here are friendly and knowledgeable sorts. I always get humbled by the opportunity to learn from so many experienced people, and share what little knowledge I have with those who just started out.
KelBench400
New member
one step further
I'm going to go a step further and say that the glock passed the reliability test because it DIDN'T fire your faulty ammunition. I don't think I would trust my glock enough if I knew that it would fire a round so out of spec. Not that one would ever make it into my gun, mind you, but I really don't want to lose a hand at the range while shooting improperly reloaded ammunition. And as far as me being at a disadvantage against some real-world threat because my glock can't fire this ammunition?? That's why we all test our carry ammuntion BEFORE we carry it!! It's also why we inspect our ammunition BEFORE we load it!! Your argument is just plain riduculous and I hope that you joking or are so doped up on drugs that you won't remember how much of a fool you made yourself out to be.
Kel
I'm going to go a step further and say that the glock passed the reliability test because it DIDN'T fire your faulty ammunition. I don't think I would trust my glock enough if I knew that it would fire a round so out of spec. Not that one would ever make it into my gun, mind you, but I really don't want to lose a hand at the range while shooting improperly reloaded ammunition. And as far as me being at a disadvantage against some real-world threat because my glock can't fire this ammunition?? That's why we all test our carry ammuntion BEFORE we carry it!! It's also why we inspect our ammunition BEFORE we load it!! Your argument is just plain riduculous and I hope that you joking or are so doped up on drugs that you won't remember how much of a fool you made yourself out to be.
Kel
Wild Romanian,
When will you answer my questions?
I will repost it again. There is no personal attack in this post, I'm asking you a direct, straightforward question. . .
The premise of your entire argument is irrelevant. The vast majority of shooters who carry handguns to protect themselves use premium quality factory ammo. In all my years of shooting, I've never once seen a high primed factory round. Those who use handloads are generally very experienced and accomplished handloaders who check and double check their ammo before loading up their mags. The results of your "test" prove that when someone uses faulty ammo some firearms may not function. Therefore, this entire argument is a non-issue.
Now, can you please answer my question regarding how you came to have two different calibers with high primers at the range (or even one for that matter)?
Waiting. . .
Shake
When will you answer my questions?
I will repost it again. There is no personal attack in this post, I'm asking you a direct, straightforward question. . .
I challenge you to indicate where in this thread (or any for that matter) I stated that striker fired weapons are any more reliable than any other system. This is one of the reasons discussing something with you degenerates to an argument. You act as though I'm arguing a point which in reality I've never even addressed.
The premise of your entire argument is irrelevant. The vast majority of shooters who carry handguns to protect themselves use premium quality factory ammo. In all my years of shooting, I've never once seen a high primed factory round. Those who use handloads are generally very experienced and accomplished handloaders who check and double check their ammo before loading up their mags. The results of your "test" prove that when someone uses faulty ammo some firearms may not function. Therefore, this entire argument is a non-issue.
Now, can you please answer my question regarding how you came to have two different calibers with high primers at the range (or even one for that matter)?
Waiting. . .
Shake
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Probably because he has no idea what he is doing when it comes to reloading... and firearms in general.
My 1911
I tried to put a 12 gauge 00buckshot load in my Para-Ordnance P-14 and the damn things wouldnt even go in what a rip off I then tried putting a .45 brass in my Mosseberg 590 and it wouldnt feed or shoot after that I took the brass and hit it with a hammer and it wouldnt ignite.
Of course after coming out of idiotland I realized that my Para takes .45acp ammo my Mosseberg takes 12 ga. empty brass needs a primer,bullet, and powder to shoot. Also if I make my own ammo in a way that is different from the instructions then it is my fault that it will or will not shoot or blow up.
P.S. you have way too much time on your hands if you are making crap ammo for fun
I tried to put a 12 gauge 00buckshot load in my Para-Ordnance P-14 and the damn things wouldnt even go in what a rip off
I then tried putting a .45 brass in my Mosseberg 590 and it wouldnt feed or shoot after that I took the brass and hit it with a hammer and it wouldnt ignite.Of course after coming out of idiotland I realized that my Para takes .45acp ammo my Mosseberg takes 12 ga. empty brass needs a primer,bullet, and powder to shoot. Also if I make my own ammo in a way that is different from the instructions then it is my fault that it will or will not shoot or blow up.
P.S. you have way too much time on your hands if you are making crap ammo for fun
After visiting this string yet again, I am comforted by the fact that there are apparently people out there more foolish then I am (i.e. W.R.) and how amusing it is that they choose to share it with everybody in such grandiose fashion. Bellisiles also comes to mind for as an example his dubious "Study" of an American Gun Culture.
- Status