Jayhawkhuntclub
New member
Never understood why it is used. The fact that you're not supposed to shoot lead in a Glock, keeps me from buying one. I don't want to spend an extra $100 on an aftermarket barrel.
What is the point of Glock polygonal rifling?
- Thread starter Jayhawkhuntclub
- Start date
Uncle Malice
New member
I shoot tons of lead in factory glock barrels. Just scrub it every 300-400 rounds.
polygonal rifling is:
1) cheaper when produced en masse
2) claimed to produce higher velocities(debated)
3) claimed to produce better accuracy(debated)
4) longer functional service life
Unless you're planning to shoot 1000 rounds without running a brush down the barrel, don't let that keep you from buying a Glock.
Also worth mentioning - all HK pistols are also polygonal rifled.
polygonal rifling is:
1) cheaper when produced en masse
2) claimed to produce higher velocities(debated)
3) claimed to produce better accuracy(debated)
4) longer functional service life
Unless you're planning to shoot 1000 rounds without running a brush down the barrel, don't let that keep you from buying a Glock.
Also worth mentioning - all HK pistols are also polygonal rifled.
Hammerhead
New member
They claim it's for a better seal, but I suspect it's an easier shape to hammer forge.
SoilworK777
New member
I wonder why not many other major manufacturers have followed suite.
Uncle Malice
New member
From what I understand, start up costs for the tooling required are cost prohibitive. Over the long run it is cheaper, but much more expensive when starting out.
We're starting to get off topic, but I want to take a swing at this.
It occurs to me that the issue of cost and how much it takes to make a gun comes up far more often in regards to Glock than it does a lot of other makers. How much does it cost to make an M&P? Idk, I don't work at S&W and I wouldn't be surprised if only a small group really know that number. How much does it cost to make an XD? Again I don't know, though we do know they were marketed in the US before with HS Produkt for significantly less money. How much does it cost to make an SR?
Glock is IMO not necessarily a story of an amazing gun, I think it is a good gun, but more a story of marketing genius. I can't and won't deny that. But to somehow argue that they are more guilty of that than any number of manufacturers out there is just ridiculous to me. The polymer striker fired pistol is a gold mine for these companies. That doesn't mean I think they're bad guns, just that I recognize what they are. S&W, Springfield Armory, Ruger, all would love that kind of success and their efforts lately show they are running the Glock playbook very well.
Actually, I believe that polygonal rifling is better. My USP-45 with a shorter barrel compared to a 5" 1911 Springfield put out very similar velocity using ammo from the same lot. I firmly believe that the gas seal is better and velocity is higher when compared to more traditional rifling.
"... price the guns to those consumers at 6 times what it costs to make them."
I think it is pretty standard for a gun to cost about 1/7 of the MSRP. That is the cost, in labor and materials, of actually making the gun; it does not include capitalization cost, and the normal costs of running a business. And it doesn't include the profits of the manufacturer, distributor and dealer.
Jim
I think it is pretty standard for a gun to cost about 1/7 of the MSRP. That is the cost, in labor and materials, of actually making the gun; it does not include capitalization cost, and the normal costs of running a business. And it doesn't include the profits of the manufacturer, distributor and dealer.
Jim
dakota1911
New member
I always heard it was cheaper to make it in huge numbers.
If there was any real advantage I think you would see bunches of them in the 1911 aftermarket area.
If there was any real advantage I think you would see bunches of them in the 1911 aftermarket area.
Uncle Malice
New member
This comes back to a numbers game. There isn't a single 1911 manufacturer or aftermarket barrel maker that is producing the amount of barrels that Glock is.
The pro's and con's can be debated, but there's no question that it would be way too financially exhausting to tool up for 1911 polygonal rifling - especially since that's one of the mos popular platforms for shooting lead.
SoilworK777
New member
Yes, but Glock produces pistols in how many calibers?
1911's are (pulling these percentages out of my ass) 90% 45 ACP, and 10% 9mm.
dakota1911
New member
So I come back to cheaper to make in large numbers. No other advantage.
Polygonal rifling is not new, it is just a slight variation of the old Metford rifling. The major advantage is that it is less susceptible to the erosion which occurs in the "corners" of the grooves in conventional rifling because the jacket does not fully swage into that area and hot gas escapes around it. Most military barrels (M1911, P.38) that have been fired much show that erosion as a darkening on either side of the lands.
In theory, less gas escape would mean higher velocity, but in practice the difference is so small as to be negligible.
Another advantage of polygonal rifling is that it is easier to clean.
But there is a disadvantage, too. Without sharp rifling, a bullet is more likely to skid as it enters the rifling, resulting in inaccuracy. That is more the case with unjacketed lead bullets, which is why Glock does not recommend them.
Jim
In theory, less gas escape would mean higher velocity, but in practice the difference is so small as to be negligible.
Another advantage of polygonal rifling is that it is easier to clean.
But there is a disadvantage, too. Without sharp rifling, a bullet is more likely to skid as it enters the rifling, resulting in inaccuracy. That is more the case with unjacketed lead bullets, which is why Glock does not recommend them.
Jim
Why did you discount longer service life? They are very tough.
That means a lot of mandrels, but the expensive part is the rotary hammer forging machine. Once you have one you can make any sort of barrel configuration cheaply.
Glock clearly went to market fully dedicated to huge production numbers. Their guns use more interchangeable parts between models than any other product line. These are all moves to leverage volume to lower unit cost.
I wouldn't be shocked if a Glock's actual cost was around $20. Think how much you pay retail for a blender - glass, steel forged spindle, bearings, motor, electric system and all those molded "polymer" parts. If Glock has pumped out millions of these things, the production costs, labor and materials are really minimal.
Another, even better, example would be a chain saw. You can buy ones with gas motors for less than $100. A chain saw is considerably more difficult to build than pistol, with even more expensive material and production costs.
Last edited:
Uncle Malice
New member
Having shot thousands upon thousands of lead round through factory Glocks... I'll take my chances. Just don't be a moron about it.
unless it happens to you
Most highly recommend lead bullets NOT be used in stock Glock poly-barrels.
$100 barrels cost $100 because they're cheap; most highly recommend Glock aftermarket seekers choose KKM.
Plated bullets can work very well in Glock poly-barrels.
Folks who follow rigorous cleaning schedules may shoot lead, but it's still most definitely NOT recommended.
Most highly recommend lead bullets NOT be used in stock Glock poly-barrels.
$100 barrels cost $100 because they're cheap; most highly recommend Glock aftermarket seekers choose KKM.
Plated bullets can work very well in Glock poly-barrels.
Folks who follow rigorous cleaning schedules may shoot lead, but it's still most definitely NOT recommended.