Glock is getting sued for exploding gun

[Bang]

I don't own a 9mm Glock factory barrel. I do own a .40S&W factory (G23 3G) barrel, and the ramp-chamber transition is a measured .063" "unsupported".

A Winchester .40 S&W case I have examined is solid brass from stamped surface of the head to where the web transitions to case wall for a measured distance of .199" of solid brass. In other words, there is no wall portion that is unsupported at time of striker impact. The wall can only become unsupported during the extraction phase of the firing. I don't know what pressure would be remaining when the wall rides back beyond the ramp transition point, a rearward movement of (.199-.063) .139". But in order for the now-exposed wall to blow out, remaining pressures would have to be high enough to do it. I believe the design is such that the bullet has cleared the muzzle before the slide begins rearward movement. If so, I am wondering if the remaining pressure would be sufficient to destroy gun parts.

How about if the strength of the recoil spring is less than spec, allowing earlier recoil/extraction which translates to a higher pressure at the time the wall is exposed to the unsupported position? If so, that might put the onus on the owner/operator for firing an out-of-spec pistol.

I have a Lone Wolf Alpha Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. Its transition point from ramp to chamber (so-called unsupported area) is .023". An R-P case I have measures case length .753", .571" at the web/wall point, and .590" depth mouth to flash hole. Since the web tapers in a concave manner, I would say the web is solid front to rear for (.753 minus .590) .163". Of course, strength beyond wall thickness extends to .182". Using the .163" point (complete solid thickness disregarding the flash hole), the case would have to move rearward for (.163 minus .023) .140" before gradually weakening case exposure to the unsupported area. .023" of "unsupported" case seems a non-issue re aftermarket Alpha Wolf barrel.

[P89]

From what I'm reading the G5 will be out by the end of August.
I don't know what that means since the provided pic looked just like every Glock I've ever seen.

[USMC3531]

I don't own a 9mm Glock factory barrel. I do own a .40S&W factory (G23 3G) barrel, and the ramp-chamber transition is a measured .063" "unsupported".

A Winchester .40 S&W case I have examined is solid brass from stamped surface of the head to where the web transitions to case wall for a measured distance of .199" of solid brass. In other words, there is no wall portion that is unsupported at time of striker impact. The wall can only become unsupported during the extraction phase of the firing. I don't know what pressure would be remaining when the wall rides back beyond the ramp transition point, a rearward movement of (.199-.063) .139". But in order for the now-exposed wall to blow out, remaining pressures would have to be high enough to do it. I believe the design is such that the bullet has cleared the muzzle before the slide begins rearward movement. If so, I am wondering if the remaining pressure would be sufficient to destroy gun parts.

How about if the strength of the recoil spring is less than spec, allowing earlier recoil/extraction which translates to a higher pressure at the time the wall is exposed to the unsupported position? If so, that might put the onus on the owner/operator for firing an out-of-spec pistol.

I have a Lone Wolf Alpha Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. Its transition point from ramp to chamber (so-called unsupported area) is .023". An R-P case I have measures case length .753", .571" at the web/wall point, and .590" depth mouth to flash hole. Since the web tapers in a concave manner, I would say the web is solid front to rear for (.753 minus .590) .163". Of course, strength beyond wall thickness extends to .182". Using the .163" point (complete solid thickness disregarding the flash hole), the case would have to move rearward for (.163 minus .023) .140" before gradually weakening case exposure to the unsupported area. .023" of "unsupported" case seems a non-issue re aftermarket Alpha Wolf barrel.

I appreciate you doing all those measurements. but something is going on as most glock casings bulge showing they arent fully supported (and why they sell bulge buster dies)

[Bang]

Sorry, didn't mean to seem argumentative. I was responding to Philadelphia patriot's question "Do aftermarket barrels have supported chambers? "

I have no bulges to contend with using the Alpha Wolf 9mm aftermarket barrel.

I haven't fired many 40s from the G23 factory barrel so really don't know re the 40.
The 357 SIGs I load and reload don't have a bulge problem, probably because they use a Wolf barrel also.

[jakebrake]

It's a bullshit suit that's why he's suing everyone including cabela's, hopefully the judge see's past this.

dude....really?

he'll win something....I figure 100k between the defendants.

[HKusp 45]

dude....really?

he'll win something....I figure 100k between the defendants.

yeah still a bullshit suit he's counting on enough people to settle because it'll cost more to fight. The fact that it's going to work doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

[dkf]

I appreciate you doing all those measurements. but something is going on as most glock casings bulge showing they arent fully supported (and why they sell bulge buster dies)

If you think this happens only with Glocks you are fooling yourself. There are pistols out there that are worse than what the old Glock barrels ever were. Machining MORE material out of a barrel does not save cost, machine time is not free and neither is tooling. The cut at the feed ramp is to help reliability in feeding, bigger the cut the easier the transition in most cases.

Do aftermarket barrels have supported chambers?

No, not fully supported. If you want a fully supported chamber buy a revolver. Isn't going to happen on the vast majority of semi auto pistols out there.

The 357 SIGs I load and reload don't have a bulge problem, probably because they use a Wolf barrel also.

The .357sig has slightly more robust case web than the .40. The .357sig barrels made within the last 15 years or so have the most "supported" chambers of any barrel Glock has ever made. The chambers of the Glock barrels I measured are smack dab in the middle of SAAMI's specified tolerance range. Glock is not making barrels "loose" like people seem to think they are.

[USMC3531]

If you think this happens only with Glocks you are fooling yourself. There are pistols out there that are worse than what the old Glock barrels ever were. Machining MORE material out of a barrel does not save cost, machine time is not free and neither is tooling. The cut at the feed ramp is to help reliability in feeding, bigger the cut the easier the transition in most cases.


.

I never said it was only flock, they are one of the worst offenders imo due to the number of pistols out there. Cutting the chamber like that is a "bandaid" for poor feed angle elsewhere in the firearm. Guys have done it on ak47 to help feed soft point or round nose projectiles . But for a factory to continually do it instead of fixing the problem is half assed and they know it.

[dkf]

Whatever you say.

[FJW]

I never said it was only flock, they are one of the worst offenders imo due to the number of pistols out there. Cutting the chamber like that is a "bandaid" for poor feed angle elsewhere in the firearm. Guys have done it on ak47 to help feed soft point or round nose projectiles . But for a factory to continually do it instead of fixing the problem is half assed and they know it.

Is it possible that perhaps all Glocks roll off the assembly line according to military specs...and would naturally be made for FMJ first and foremost according to the rules of war? So perhaps they fuck with it haphazardly post-assembly in order to create "surplus" batches for the commercial/civilian market. It would show the mentality of the company's executives...whicb apparently is to do the minimum required to get a stupid American to buy something.

My Radom P83 (Walther PP near-clone in 9x18) does not do well at all with Hornady Critical Defense HP's. I imagine it would do better with a minor grinding and smoothing fluff N buff of the ramp. Not necessarily something that will work well with all Milspecs. Maybe that's what is behind the problem with certain Glocks. Maybe the key is even the model more than the brand. Still says something about a company though if it's true.