Why don't other major handgun makers use polygonal barrels like Glock's and Baby Eagles? Aren't they more accurate and generate greater velocities than standard rifling? Another plus is that they don't leave rifling marks on the bullet so a fired round can't be traced back to the gun.
Polygonal barrels
- Thread starter Amish
- Start date
H&K does use polygonal rifling. The gain in velocity really isn't that muck, IIRC.
SIG's and some 1911's seem plenty accurate with traditional rifling.
Who told you that no marks are left on the bullet? Think this one through. Still wouldn't be a plus for me. In the case of a self defense shooting, I will be reporting it to the police from a safe location.
SIG's and some 1911's seem plenty accurate with traditional rifling.
Who told you that no marks are left on the bullet? Think this one through. Still wouldn't be a plus for me. In the case of a self defense shooting, I will be reporting it to the police from a safe location.
Polygonal rifling does leave marks.
While shooting outside on someone's private land a couple months ago, I recovered 2 bullets, a .45 FMJ and a .40 S&W FMJ.
They were fired from a H&K USP 45C and a Kahr MK40, which both have polygonal rifling (correct me if I'm wrong)
Both recovered bullets had very clear rifling marks on them.
While shooting outside on someone's private land a couple months ago, I recovered 2 bullets, a .45 FMJ and a .40 S&W FMJ.
They were fired from a H&K USP 45C and a Kahr MK40, which both have polygonal rifling (correct me if I'm wrong)
Both recovered bullets had very clear rifling marks on them.
The most common reasons it's not used more is cost & tradition. It's a more expensive process and a lot of shooters aren't open to new things they're not familar with. Besides, if everyone starting doing it more people would know how to pronounce it. Then where would the fun be in listening to mangle it at the local gunshop? 
Quite opposite, cost of polygonal rifling im mass production is considerably less than traditional rifling. It has no other advantages except cost reduction for the manufacturer.
And it's not widely recognized by serious shooting public
because there is no proof that polygonal profile is more accurate than traditional.
And it's not widely recognized by serious shooting public
because there is no proof that polygonal profile is more accurate than traditional.
Then if you were building a new machine to rifle barrels, it would be more cost effective than traditional rifling. You would also have to do this on new models or just specific models.
New machinery is not cheap, in addition to the machine itself there is the design and engineering time. While this may not be the most complicated engineering, it still costs money. Meanwhile the cost of building a machine to build a barrel design you already use is just the cost of building the machine itself.
New machinery is not cheap, in addition to the machine itself there is the design and engineering time. While this may not be the most complicated engineering, it still costs money. Meanwhile the cost of building a machine to build a barrel design you already use is just the cost of building the machine itself.
Well said Shake...
And, a reason why more don't offer it is the same reason there are so many aftermarket barrels available with traditional rifling for the Glock pistols. So you CAN shoot lead bullets in the gun. Lead bullets have been traced as a source of kabooms in Glocks. And also, I would hope that if I but a Bar-Sto match grade barrel with traditional rifling in my Glock that I would see accuracy improvement over the factory barrel.
And, a reason why more don't offer it is the same reason there are so many aftermarket barrels available with traditional rifling for the Glock pistols. So you CAN shoot lead bullets in the gun. Lead bullets have been traced as a source of kabooms in Glocks. And also, I would hope that if I but a Bar-Sto match grade barrel with traditional rifling in my Glock that I would see accuracy improvement over the factory barrel.
Walt Sherrill
New member
AC wrote:
That's not really true. I've shot with several professional shooters (i.e., sponsored and paid by gun industry manufacturers) who shoot lead in polygonal barrels, with good success.
The issue with at least some of the polygonal barrels -- Glock, for instance -- is that they are larger than spec. One acquaintance uses a slightly larger bullet and has absolutely no problems.
(Part of the problem with polygonal barrels, as it has been explained to me, is that less of the bullet contacts the barrel sides and that leaves more area for hot combustion gases to pass and melt lead. This leads to lead buildup, problems, and kabooms... at least in theory.)
Use the right lead, right size bullet, and keep the loading from being too darned hot, and you'll find that polygonal barrels can eat lead with the best of them.
Lots of trouble to do all that, you say? Yup. But not a big deal for handloaders
That's not really true. I've shot with several professional shooters (i.e., sponsored and paid by gun industry manufacturers) who shoot lead in polygonal barrels, with good success.
The issue with at least some of the polygonal barrels -- Glock, for instance -- is that they are larger than spec. One acquaintance uses a slightly larger bullet and has absolutely no problems.
(Part of the problem with polygonal barrels, as it has been explained to me, is that less of the bullet contacts the barrel sides and that leaves more area for hot combustion gases to pass and melt lead. This leads to lead buildup, problems, and kabooms... at least in theory.)
Use the right lead, right size bullet, and keep the loading from being too darned hot, and you'll find that polygonal barrels can eat lead with the best of them.
Lots of trouble to do all that, you say? Yup. But not a big deal for handloaders
George Helser
New member
Amish,
Have you visually compared your Glock barrel to that of an HK Polygonal barrel? They don’t look ANYTHING alike!
Using a magnifying glass, I cannot see any difference between the barrel in my G26 & barrel and my S&W M39. (The 25 year old M39 has traditional rifling.)
People post messages about Glocks having Polygonal barrels but my G26 manual says Hexagonal. If the Glock had expensive, high efficiency, HK style Polygonal rifling then why wouldn’t they state it in the manual? What does your Glock manual say? Maybe having more than one land/groove qualifies in some minds as Polygonal but it seems like false hype.
HKs with Polygonal rifling clock higher muzzle velocity than traditional barrels of equal length.
If anyone has seen a Glock barrel with Polygonal rifling like in a HK USP, P7 or Mark 23, please let me know.
Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
P.S. I think it is a common misconception that unjacketed lead bullets should not be used in Polygonal barrels because the P7 could not use unjacketed bullets. The reason the P7 needed jacketed bullets had nothing to do with the barrel, it was the gas port which could get clogged from lead and disable the slide retard system.
Have you visually compared your Glock barrel to that of an HK Polygonal barrel? They don’t look ANYTHING alike!
Using a magnifying glass, I cannot see any difference between the barrel in my G26 & barrel and my S&W M39. (The 25 year old M39 has traditional rifling.)
People post messages about Glocks having Polygonal barrels but my G26 manual says Hexagonal. If the Glock had expensive, high efficiency, HK style Polygonal rifling then why wouldn’t they state it in the manual? What does your Glock manual say? Maybe having more than one land/groove qualifies in some minds as Polygonal but it seems like false hype.
HKs with Polygonal rifling clock higher muzzle velocity than traditional barrels of equal length.
If anyone has seen a Glock barrel with Polygonal rifling like in a HK USP, P7 or Mark 23, please let me know.
Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
P.S. I think it is a common misconception that unjacketed lead bullets should not be used in Polygonal barrels because the P7 could not use unjacketed bullets. The reason the P7 needed jacketed bullets had nothing to do with the barrel, it was the gas port which could get clogged from lead and disable the slide retard system.
Darn near all rifled barrels are polygonal, with the arguable exception of two groove barrels. A hexagon is one of many possible polygons.
There are terms to describe the shapes of the lands and grooves in various barrel makers products, but hardly anybody uses them.
Polygonal sounds good.
Sam
There are terms to describe the shapes of the lands and grooves in various barrel makers products, but hardly anybody uses them.
Polygonal sounds good.
Sam
George in Sunny Arizona, Glocks DO have polygonal barrels. Polygonal simply means multiple (more than 3) sides. Glocks happen to have 6 sides, hence the term Hexagonal. I believe that the Glock .45 has an Octagonal barrel.
The advanatage of Polygonal barrels is not improved accurracy. I believe that traditional lands and grooves are more accurrate. The advantage is, a better gas seal which will give slightly higher velocities and the barrel will generally last longer than a traditional barrel. Also, easier cleaning.
The advanatage of Polygonal barrels is not improved accurracy. I believe that traditional lands and grooves are more accurrate. The advantage is, a better gas seal which will give slightly higher velocities and the barrel will generally last longer than a traditional barrel. Also, easier cleaning.
George Helser
New member
harrydog,
Every rifle & pistol I have ever owned or shot or looked at had polygonal barrel (having more than 4 sides & angles). Except for HK’s they ALL had distinct lands/grooves. I call the arms with distinct lands/grooves “traditional” rifling.
harrydog, please compare your Glock rifling with the rifling in an HK P7 or USP or Mk23. They don’t look anything alike. The HK rifling looks like a wavy smooth bore without any distinct lands/grooves. This HK rifling gives lower friction & higher velocity (a big advantage) with longer life. HK calls this more efficient and costly barrel design “Polygonal” as in an infinite number of sides/angles.
Do YOU have a term to differentiate the HK Polygonal (infinite number of sides/angles) rifling from traditional polygonal rifling in Glocks and 99.9% of rifles & pistols?
Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
Every rifle & pistol I have ever owned or shot or looked at had polygonal barrel (having more than 4 sides & angles). Except for HK’s they ALL had distinct lands/grooves. I call the arms with distinct lands/grooves “traditional” rifling.
harrydog, please compare your Glock rifling with the rifling in an HK P7 or USP or Mk23. They don’t look anything alike. The HK rifling looks like a wavy smooth bore without any distinct lands/grooves. This HK rifling gives lower friction & higher velocity (a big advantage) with longer life. HK calls this more efficient and costly barrel design “Polygonal” as in an infinite number of sides/angles.
Do YOU have a term to differentiate the HK Polygonal (infinite number of sides/angles) rifling from traditional polygonal rifling in Glocks and 99.9% of rifles & pistols?
Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona
Barrels tend to leave a marks on bullets fired from it..something like a 'finger print'. This assist in the ballistics testing of guns suspected to have been involved in crimes. A barrel can be designed however to not leave a fingerprint but you would be hardpressed to explain why you would want such a barrel to law enforcement.
Polygonal barrels CAN and DO fire lead bullets. Just be sure to give them a thorough cleaning when done. This is not recommended for Glocks because of the design of their barrels but the USPs handles lead bullets well. I like the USPc 9mm barrel as although 3.58 inches in length compared to the G19's stock barrel length of 4.02 inches, it produces equivalent, sometimes higher velocity (depending on bullet used), less case expansion, has a supported chamber and is more accurate.
Polygonal barrels CAN and DO fire lead bullets. Just be sure to give them a thorough cleaning when done. This is not recommended for Glocks because of the design of their barrels but the USPs handles lead bullets well. I like the USPc 9mm barrel as although 3.58 inches in length compared to the G19's stock barrel length of 4.02 inches, it produces equivalent, sometimes higher velocity (depending on bullet used), less case expansion, has a supported chamber and is more accurate.
Having owned 5 of the pistols being discussed, I hope a new opinion is welcomed.
Glock barrels are argueably neither polygonal or land and groove. They do not have raised lands, but also lack the grooveless profile of every other polygonal barrel in use. Glock once described their rifling as "cyclonic". Might as well leave it at that. Glock barrels are very hard on lead bullets. I've heard no evidence that any true polygonal design is particularly bad. Any barrel can lead up, especially with soft alloys. (BTW, don't confuse leaded and blown Glock barrels with kBs; different problems with different results.)
As to the cretinous accuracy of polygonal bores, it's a shame that the HK P9S, P7, Steyr GB, Peters Stahl Omega and Desert Eagle all use that barrel type. Since they are five of the most accurate production pistols ever made, it's funny that the manufactorers didn't select their rifling better. If the claims that traditional land and groove are superior are to be believed, those guns could have been even more accurate.
And all pistol bores leave traceable marks-even smooth bores. The assertion otherwise is as ridiculous as it is inflamatory.
Glock barrels are argueably neither polygonal or land and groove. They do not have raised lands, but also lack the grooveless profile of every other polygonal barrel in use. Glock once described their rifling as "cyclonic". Might as well leave it at that. Glock barrels are very hard on lead bullets. I've heard no evidence that any true polygonal design is particularly bad. Any barrel can lead up, especially with soft alloys. (BTW, don't confuse leaded and blown Glock barrels with kBs; different problems with different results.)
As to the cretinous accuracy of polygonal bores, it's a shame that the HK P9S, P7, Steyr GB, Peters Stahl Omega and Desert Eagle all use that barrel type. Since they are five of the most accurate production pistols ever made, it's funny that the manufactorers didn't select their rifling better. If the claims that traditional land and groove are superior are to be believed, those guns could have been even more accurate.
And all pistol bores leave traceable marks-even smooth bores. The assertion otherwise is as ridiculous as it is inflamatory.
Last edited:
I haven't seen a Glock barrel before so I can't tell you if it looks like a Baby Eagle. However the Baby Eagle's barrel is called a polygonal and it has no distinct land/grooves. It looks "cyclonic" or wavy. I don't see how this barrel would leave distinct grooves on the bullet to allow it to be traced back to the barrel. I first learned out this watching TV. A detective said that polygonal barrels like the ones found in Glocks don't leave "fingerprints" on the bullet to allow investigators to match the bullet with the barrel. He said that most criminals do not know this.
I guess they do now.
I guess they do now.