Glock “Marksman” Barrels

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
After years of Glock saying polygonal rifling was just as effective as traditional rifling, I thought it was interesting that when Glock had to meet the accuracy requirements for the M17 contract, they submitted a pistol with traditional rifling.

Is that a commentary on the accuracy of polygonal rifling or is there some other credible explanation for it?
 
My personal take on things.

How do you sell a person a Glock pistol when you sold him that same Glock pistol 20 years ago and you made the damn thing so durable and so reliable that it lasts for damn ever. Ohh and a cottage industry has grown up around your super durable and reliable pistol that makes it so you can basically order any parts you need out of the Sears catalog?

Marketing.

I have a Gen 5 19 and Gen 3 19. I don't see any practical accuracy difference. I do like the Gen 5 more (as much as one can "like" a Glock, but I digress) but it has more to do with the grip and new NDLC finish then anything else.
 
HKs use polygonal rifling. They are often regarded as accurate.

I've owned Glock from Gen 3 now through Gen 5. I do believe the Gen 5 Glocks, from my own shooting, are more accurate, and some ransom rest tests have agreed. That said, I don't think it's a result of rifling.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I have READ that the Gen 5 "Marksman" barrel is indeed more accurate than previous "polygonal." I don't think the Gen 5 is actually conventional crisp land and groove, though. Still a shape for fast hammer forging.
 
cslinger said:
I would argue the trigger has more to do with it, especially vs a Gen4.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't think that's it for me personally. Mostly I'm comparing Gen 3s with Gen 5s and while the triggers are different they're not radically so. My Gen 5s break at most 0.5 lb. lighter (mine are heavier than others I've tried) and it's more of a rolling break than a wall, and I actually prefer the latter. That doesn't explain the ransom rest results either.

I'll say this though. Say the old Glocks were 3" at 25 yds instead of the now claimed 2". I've shot with hundreds of shooters and I can count the people that can do 3" standing on one hand. In the end I think it's mostly a moot point.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I'll say this though. Say the old Glocks were 3" at 25 yds instead of the now claimed 2". I've shot with hundreds of shooters and I can count the people that can do 3" standing on one hand. In the end I think it's mostly a moot point.
Click to expand...

What TR said. DITTO!

Dave
 
I like the standard rifling for use when shooting lead with the 10mm and .45 ACP. Besides reloaders who cast their own bullets, which is >1% of Glock owners, I don't know anyone who shoots lead with a 9mm or .40 S&W Glock, so I don't think it matters.

I will assume Glock got a better price using standard rifled barrels vs their pseudo polygonal rifled barrels.

I'm not buying any Gen 5 Glock, not unless they make the G40 MOS in a Gen 5 variant and I doubt that will be for another 5 years.
 
lead

So, will the Gen 5 pistols handle lead bullets? If so, there would be a cost savings to reloaders, whether or not Glock endorses reloads or not.

Presently, we shoot plated bullets from our Glock 9mm's, but lead would be even cheaper .
 
bamaranger said:
So, will the Gen 5 pistols handle lead bullets? If so, there would be a cost savings to reloaders, whether or not Glock endorses reloads or not.

Presently, we shoot plated bullets from our Glock 9mm's, but lead would be even cheaper .
Click to expand...
Unless casting bullets using free lead, there's no savings shooting plated bullets over lead. No real savings at all when reloading 9mm either, time is better used reloading other cartridges or enjoying life than reloading 9mm.
 
Glock isn't buying barrels, so I'm not sure how much cost was a factor in that switch (though I see that comment a lot). They have their own machinery that made the polygonal hammer forged barrels for years (probably decades really). Glocks were already very cheap for Glock to make. There is likely always money to be saved, but these barrels with their recessed crowns and different rifling seem like more work to me, not less.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
My 19x is probably my best shooting Glock but my Gen3 17 & 19 are both really good and very close to the 19x. My Gen3 19 is a better carry gun than the 19x and this I can verify since these both share the same holsters. Let’s be honest here, there really isn’t a whole lot of difference that matters between these 2 Gen3’s and the 19x which has a lot of Gen5 features. I think the one that I practice & train with the most is the one that is going to work out the best for me, anyway.
 
I dont believe Glock makes the Gen 5 barrels? they seem lower quality and show wear after only firing 100 rds, probably a cost cutting short cut

they wont tell you even if they had the barrels made by another contractor
 
I have 2000 rds through one barrel and 2500 rds through the other. What is this wear exactly? If you mean the finish on the barrel, that's a function of the finish they are using now. The rifling itself looks brand new once clean and I can't see any deformation around the locking block. As far as cost, for a company as large as Glock that already has the infrastructure to make barrels and produces firearms on the scale that they do I can't imagine that contracting with another company would be cheaper than doing it themselves.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I assume the mandrel used in the hammer forge rifling machine is a wear part and must be replaced periodically. OK, just grind the new one with a different rifling pattern, and voila, Perfection Improved.
If so, the incremental cost of the Marksman barrel is little to nothing.
 
^ my thinking as well. I don't see the change as a cost cutting measure, but I doubt it cost Glock much.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
It's not super hard to stay relevant when every one of of your competitors produces a clone of the pistol you've been making for decades. I'll be the first to admit that since its release Glock hasn't changed much, but people keep buying them in numbers that seem to defy expectations, see the 19X. Even the last holdovers like HK and SIG that had been producing DA hammer fired pistols (LEM or DAK) as an alternative to Glocks for a long time finally joined. And the reality is it is good they did. Without the VP9, HK USA had very low sales and the P320 has given SIG the biggest contract in history. At their core those pistols are striker fired, polymer framed, Browning tilting barrel designs that feed from a detachable magazine, which should sound familiar. Yes Glock didn't win the Army contract and yes other companies have gained some LE contracts, but Glock still has the FBI and a number of departments, and that combined with civilian sales is how they've survived this whole time. I get that people like other designs and I can see why, but to say Glock is no longer relevant is to ignore reality.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top