What is the point of Glock polygonal rifling?

What's "being a moron" about it? Do you check the barrel every 5 rounds, 50 rounds?

Once leading starts in a Glock barrel, how many rounds does it take to go from some to dangerous?
Click to expand...

I've shot up to 300-400 rounds of lead in a single session with little to no build up. Since I do most of my shooting on my lunch break at work, it's usually more like 100-150 rounds. Take it home and clean it. I was more careful with it when I first started, checking frequently. It occurred to me that it was much to do about nothing.
 
I'm not going to lecture you about what you do with your gun. But people have leaded up Glock barrels using hard lead and cleaning with reasonable frequency - it doesn't appear to be an issue that can be entirely prevented with care alone.

How do you tell the difference between something that isn't likely to happen, and something that just hasn't happened yet?

It's a little like letting your kid play with a recalled toy just because they haven't choked, yet.


Unless, of course, the prospect of blowing the barrel isn't very upsetting. I don't recall anyone being seriously hurt by a blown leaded Glock barrel.
 
Glock doesn't use true polygonal rifling. It's more of a smooth bore with rounded speedbumps thrown in. I never had leading issues in my 21, but still sent a mop down every couple hundred donated to the dirt.

My Kahr on the other hand would look like a stop sign in cross section and its the main reason why I want to sell it for the new R51. It leads something fierce after two mags.

If it were up to me I would have all my handguns with the spiffy Glock rifling. Makes it much easier to clean.
 
Chris,

HK, Desert Eagles, Baby Eagles, the older Steyrs and other polygonal guns I've owned look like neither a Glock or Kahr. Classic poly rifling looks like a smooth bore that has been twisted - no discernible corners.
 
I think the poly barrels are much easier to clean.. they dont have any sharp corners that collect hard packed crud like land & groove does.

For that reason alone I prefer the polygonal barrels.
 
HK, Desert Eagles, Baby Eagles, the older Steyrs and other polygonal guns I've owned look like neither a Glock or Kahr. Classic poly rifling looks like a smooth bore that has been twisted - no discernible corners.
Click to expand...

Sort of silly but I love looking down a freshly cleaned polygonal barrel (out of the slide of course ;)). It's just pretty.
 
Agreed. Another ridiculous benefit of polygonal rifling - it looks snazzy and space age.

Lands and grooves are so 18th century.
 
Shooting cast in polygonal barrels can be a problem, but not always. Glock recommends against cast probably simply to avoid potential liability issues. If they didn't warn against it, they might expose themselves to liability claims. So, they stay on the safe side.

I have a Bersa 9UC, which, as it happens, has polygonal rifling of exactly the same pattern as a Glock. No leading whatsoever, with my handloads....and excellent accuracy. So, I will continue with cast bullets....but I will certainly watch out for leading going forward (which is simply the prudent thing to do).
 
Shooting cast in polygonal barrels can be a problem, but not always. Glock recommends against cast probably simply to avoid potential liability issues. If they didn't warn against it, they might expose themselves to liability claims. So, they stay on the safe side.
Click to expand...
This isn't true. Glock started recommends against it because a bunch of barrels blew up, and Glock reacted by researching the failures and deciding the barrel was not compatible with lead.

There are butt covering warnings, and ones based on real life. I don't know how you got the idea that the Glock lead thing was the former, but you're wrong.

You can shoot lead in Glocks, feed babies honey and drive in the rain with bald tires. But a lot of experience says that none of the warnings against them came from the imaginations of lawyers.
 
OK, so I am wrong about Glock's warning. Since I don't give a hoot in heck about Glocks, that's just fine with me. They can all blow up, as far as I'm concerned.

My basic premise however, is NOT wrong. Cast CAN be used in polygonal barrels safely. If one is an idiot....and doesn't watch out for leading problems (which is a POTENTIAL problem with ANY barrel, depending on the loads, bullet fit, lube, etc.)....then that is another matter. But, the existence of idiots in the world does not govern the actions of all.

Plenty of us use cast in polygonal barrels, with no problems. Plenty of us will continue to do so, with no problems.....including Glock owners.

If some individuals blow up their barrels by not dealing with the issues properly, which will no doubt continue to happen....well, then, we will know who the idiots are, won't we ? Natural selection at work....not a bad thing at all (unless you happen to be standing nearby at that moment).
 
Last edited:
wpsdlrg wrote: Shooting cast in polygonal barrels can be a problem, but not always. Glock recommends against cast probably simply to avoid potential liability issues. If they didn't warn against it, they might expose themselves to liability claims. So, they stay on the safe side.
Click to expand...
RX-79G wrote: This isn't true. Glock started recommends against it because a bunch of barrels blew up, and Glock reacted by researching the failures and deciding the barrel was not compatible with lead.
Click to expand...


It seems there is some pertinent information that you left out regarding the tests performed by Glock before making that determination. Like how many rounds of lead were shot through those particular barrels before they failed?

Without those numbers, empirical data as provided by shooters like Uncle Malice goes a lot farther in my book.
 
Strictly speculation on my part - but - it makes sense to me.....

When Gaston Glock released his product to the shooting world, it was a radical departure from anything else.
Using an "off the wall" feature like polygonal rifling would fit right into that radical departure image.

I submit that it was done for no practical reason at all.
It was done simply because it's "different".

It's also hard to argue against one other thing about Glock the marketer....

He's a successful money maker.
In the firearms industry, that's a real rarity.....
 
Since a staffer did it, I'll chime in also.
It is unfair to try to compare manufacturing costs with selling price.
It is common for an item to be the smallest expense involved in running a business and selling a product. We don't own the companies or pay their bills. Meaning "cost" is only part of the total expense in running a business. e.g. the cost of beer in a can is less than the worth of the can. But try running the business for four cents.
Glock started it's life from the mind of a mechanical engineer and, it appears, he has done quite well with a reliable product sold at competitive prices. Methinks using his version of a poly barrel was only part of the design process.
 
2 related questions:

Is polygonal rifling better for +P, +P+, and NATO spec ammo?

From a military maintenance / logistics / procurement standpoint how does polygonal rifling compare against standard rifling?
 
I shot countless rounds of lead though my 9mm and .45 glocks, never a problem for me. But I also clean after each shooting session and I've recently switch to frog lube which has cut down on cleaning time.
 
There is no empirical data about how Glocks lead, and folks need to understand that. There isn't a simple formula to follow - dangerous leading may or may not start at any round count. Soft lead makes it more likely, but hard lead and regular cleaning is not proof against it, either. It is a role of the dice, no matter how much you don't want to believe it. It only takes one round that leaves too much lead behind to begin a cascade that results in failure X number rounds later.

It is exactly like predicting when the next asteroid is going to hit the earth. It is a predictably unpredictable event. So spend a few pennies more for copper wash and you can stop trying to guess.

Also, this is a Glock (and maybe Kahr) issue. No other polygonal maker has these concerns.

Regardless of leading, all polygonal barrels are the longest lasting, which will always be an advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top