Glock 22

[mooman76]

I was thinking of getting a Glock 22(.40). I shot one where I work this week because it is their new weapon of choice and I liked it allot. I heard that Glocks have a hard time digesting lead bullets. I have also heard they put out a warning not to shoot lead bullets and have also heard of people blowing them up from using lead bullets. I really hate the idea of going out and buying bullets when I have 1/2 ton of lead sitting in my garage. Anyway the question is has anybody come up with a work around for this so they could shoot lead bullets?

[versifier]

Your only safe option is an aftermarket barrel. Check out this link. The polygonal rifling is designed for jacketed bullets, though some .45 owners say theirs shoot fine with cast. Lots of people load for their 9mm's and .45's without problems, but the higher pressure .357Sig's, .40S&W's, and 10mm's are no-nos. Shooting any handloads in any Glock also voids the warranty, if that matters.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

[Johnch]

I had a Glock Model 22 40 S&W.
I loved it , but sold it just before the mag ban expired , made good $$ on all the Hi cap mags I had .
I shot a fair amount of my hard cast thru it , but kept the barrel clean .

From other guys that have them a after market barrel may not be a bad idea .
Also don't shoot max reload loads in Glock unsoported chambers .
I have seen bulged brass and heard of blown cases .

If you are thinking of one , CDNN has police trade in ( Glock refurbished ).
I saw 2 that went thru the gun shop I go to , looked almost like brand new .
I think they were $349.99 in the Military Grey finish .
Glock 22 mags are a steal from CDNN , Factory used are $ 9.99 and new are $12.99 . ( I got $65 for the used Hi cap mags I sold )


Johnch

[StarMetal]

Versifier,

A good while back I was on some kind of pistol forum, might have been a Glock forum, can't remember. Anways they were talking exactly what we're talking about here...about using factory lead bullet loaded ammo or your own lead bullet reloads and on of the fellows said that no where is it stated in the manual that comes with a Glock. He's right unless they rewritten them. Here's the only thing my manual says about ammo: No liability whatever can be accepted if inexpertly manufactured or inexpertly filled ammunition is used. All liability whatever is excluded in the event of these instructions not being observed.

That's not saying not to use it, just saying that if you have a problem with any ammo not "expertly" made or reloaded , factory or home brew, they won't honor their warranty. Shucks, I think most gun manufactures say that.

I'm not arguing there isn't a problem with Glock, just pointing out what Glock wrote at least in their older manuals supplied with their pistols.

I checked out that website you posted and if you note they said Glock wasn't the only pistol subject to these problems, in fact stated they plagues alot of 1911's, but because Glock is such a controlversal handgun, that it is in the public eye more then other brands that may have a similar problem.

There have been a few guns that used a similar rifling and had no problems with it. Honestly if a bore and rifling are half decently smooth and made, why would it's form be subject to more leading then another? I would think that cut deep rifling would accumulate more of a lead build up then what barrels Glock is making. From what I've seen Glocks barrels are very very smooth with no sharp edged rifling. I would accept the firing out of battery more the problem then the accused lead build up, even if a lead build up would keep a gun from going into FULL battery. Actually a little lead build up would keep the gun out of full battery to the 1/8 to 1/4 inch that was stated in that article.

Yes I'm one of the fellows that has shot the heck out of his Glock 21 45acp with cast bullets and I don't get a build up. Grant you I don't sit there and burn 500 rounds through it at one session. Frankly from reading all the bad stuff about it I'll clean it every session to make sure I don't run into a problem. So far after a shooting session the barrel appears pretty clean.

I'm interested in what would make a Glock firing as much as 1/4 inch out of battery? That's interesting, mine doesn't, not even close, not even close close. To me there is a glilch somewhere that nobody has put a finger on as to why it would fire that far out of battery. Be an interesting test to take a gun that did blow up, but didn't ruin the frame or side, just ruined the barrel. Put an aftermarket barrel in it and shoot the heck out of it and see if you could get the aftermarket barrel to distruct the same way.

Joe

[mooman76]

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

I got this from Vercifier the other day when I asked this ?

[versifier]

Yes, Moonman, that's what Joe was talking about. The problem isn't only with Glocks, they just happen to be in the spotlight more often. The 1911 also has a poorly supported chamber, but the .45ACP that most 1911's are chambered for has a lower operating pressure, so you don't see catastrophic case failures in them very often. You can, however, often measure a slight bulge in the fired cases above the web just as you can with the Glock cases. If more of them were chambered for .40S&W and .357Sig, I think you would be seeing a comparable amount of blowouts and blowups. I seem to remember similar problems with the 9mm (which also has fairly high operating pressures) when IPSC shooters kept trying to push it to "major" levels.
If they won't honor the waranty, that voids it, they just don't like to use the word "void" due to its negative conotations. When you call it scheiss or merde, it still stinks.

[9.3X62AL]

On another Glock thread, I mentioned some info I came across regarding the kB issue and the Glock 40's. It parallels the Gunzone information pretty closely.

I think the leading issue and the kB issue are seperate and distinct matters. A LOT of folks have good luck with cast boolits in Glocks, and I have wondered why both good and bad experiences occur regarding leading.

I think it boils down to dimensional integrity, in the same way good results come from properly dimensioned boolits in the rifled circular form bores. The polygonal form used by the Glocks cannot be measured in the same way that a slug from a conventional bore can be--across the grooves. I suspect that if we could come up with the Glock bore's cross sectional AREA, and relate that figure to a circular form area--then we could use the circular form area to determine mathematically the proper diameter for our circular-form boolits to fill the polygonal-form bore.

Alternately, we could use the widest dimension (the "groove" in the Glock form) to predicate boolit diameter, or average the widest dimension and narrowest dimension to arrive at a diametric figure, or some point between these measurements.

This is all brain-storming........the Glock barrels don't displace boolit metal to grab the boolit, the polygonal form distends it. What boolit alloys behave best under distention as opposed to displacement? No answers here, just more questions--which is why the aftermarket barrel seems like such a good idea--it returns you to familiar ground, and offers better support for case heads.

[StarMetal]

Deputy Al,

On the Glock website, under technical data, the rifling is described as hexagonal in the small bores including the 40 S&W, and as octagonal in the the 10mm and 45acps. They do not call it polygonal like HK and whether they are different I don't know. I will be measuring my Glock 21 bore soon to find out. I'm sure I've done this , but I can't remember.

Joe

[versifier]

Whatever it is called, polygonal or hexagonal, logically, because it displaces less metal and creates less friction, velocities should be higher. My .40S&W Glock23 is very accurate, and one of these days I will be able to afford an aftermarket barrel so I can shoot reloads in it safely. What I do not know: do any of the aftermarket barrels have anything but conventional rifling? I'd love to have a safe polygonal barrel to see how it performs with cast boolits. :takinWiz: the "warranty". I like my Glock and want to SHOOT it, but I don't trust the factory barrel, and all evidence seems to indicate that this is not paranoia but prudence.

[StarMetal]

versifier,

Wrong...although I haven't ...yet...investigated the differences between polygonal, hexagonal, and octagonal rifling I can tell you this. When HK first came out with their 91 in 308 it had polygonal rifling. After a brief period of manufacturing them that way, HK went to a convential style of rifling with a statement from them that is was do to a pressure reason. Some way some how the polygonal rifling was increasing the pressure of the 308 round and they were concerned enough to change it. Next I've looked through the bores of HK's, currently even have a UPC 45acp carbine with that rifling and looking through my Glock, the rifling definately looks different. In the Glock it looks like you can at least see some kind of rifling, where as in the HK you have a hard time distinguishing where the lands end and the groove starts. I'm not an expert on these riflings, but there are alot of things peculiar to them.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

That's my take on the whole Glock/reloaded ammo interface, Versifier. They really are a great series of pistols, but I haven't bought one due to their apparent reload-hostility. The price of a Glock plus a Bar-Sto barrel to civilize it is more than the price of a SIG-Sauer, all of which are reload- and cast boolit-friendly.

Another thing gained with the aftermarket tubes in 9mm and 40 S&W in addition to the cut- or broach-rifled conventional/circular form is a slowed twist rate, 1:16" in the Bar-Sto barrels. A mildly tuned Beretta 92 with a Bar-Sto on board that I fired a couple years ago just shot wonderfully with commercial .356" cast boolits, zero leading and long-lived accuracy (200+ rounds). I'm tempted to snag a Bar-Sto for my P-226, just to see what improvements could be made. Right now, it's a 2.5"-3.0" shooter at 25 yards with several different castings, and based on my experience with most service grade 9mm's and castings--that's about as good as it gets. The Beretta I spoke of above--and a box-stock Springfield 1911A1 in 9mm--both could cut that group size result in half. Seen it/done it my own self, so it IS possible. FWIW, similar results occur with the j-words in those barrels, too.

I like my Glock and want to SHOOT it, but I don't trust the factory barrel, and all evidence seems to indicate that this is not paranoia but prudence.[/QUOTE]

[StarMetal]

versifier,

I forgot to say, the HK UPC carbine I have....even though it has a 16 inch barrel...my God that thing shoots cast like no tomorrow. I've shot a 200 gr SWC from a Saeco mould, a 195 SWC from a Lyman mould, and believe it or not my 255 SWC for a 45 LC from a RCBS mould that baby shoots like a tuned 1911 at 25 and 50 yards...ragged hole. Now I can say I've blistered alot of lead out of it at one setting more then just once and the bore was lead free,dirty from lube and carbon yes, but no lead. Great gun. Now my Glock 21 I really haven't shot say 250 or more rounds out of it at one setting, but what I have shot with cast, nothing...it too was clean.

I'm beginning to think like some others stated, that I suspect some of the kabooms with Glocks are do to the loose nuts behind the steering wheel. Not all of them, just some.

Joe

[StarMetal]

All..especially Deputy Al and Versifier,

I drove a bullet through my Glock 45acp barrel. Rememeber I posted that the 45 Glock barrels have octagonal rifling. First off my slug measured dead on .451

Okay I have a picture of it here and the only difference from regular rifling are the land tops are flat and the groove bottoms are round. There is a distinction between the groove and the land. Take a look at the picture. I believe this is different then the HK polygonal rifling where you can't distinguish between land and groove.

Joe

[versifier]

Hmmm. The pressure increase in the .308's seems to defy logic, but usually when something seems to, it's because there's more to it than apparent at first look. They still use their unconventional rifling with pistol rounds, though, so maybe there's a problem with the smaller bore size(s) that doesn't show up with .35 caliber and larger diameter bullets/boolits. Nitpick over the names if you want, (I know how you enjoy it) but both "hexagonal" and "polygonal" are unconventional profiles and neither upsets the metal of a bullet/boolit as mauch as does the conventional cut, buttoned, or broached rifling. They do differ from each other, but they also have more in common with each other than they do with the conventional profile.

[StarMetal]

versifier,

True they don't upset the bullet as much. I mean heck, look at the bullet pic I posted. How could it upset the bullet as much as conventional rifling when the grooves are basically rounded with not much of an edge. In other words they don't have as much displacement area as conventional rifling. Anyways you look at the bullet pic and tell me if you think that type of rifling would build up a lead ring near the throat. Take into consideration to that the bore on my Glock is beyond smooth, it's so smooth and shiney it looks like chrome on an old 60's car bumper.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

Thanks for the pic, Joe. Just so I'm clear on the measurement you gave--that was across the slugged boolit's widest dimension? If so, I would submit that the polygonal-form rifling and its distention is more constrictive overall than is the circular form and its land displacement of bullet metal. This could explain the boosted pressures in the G-3/HK-91 series rifles.

I had an HK-91 for a few years before the bans became stylish, bought it c. 1985 or so. It had conventional form rifling, and was MONDO accurate with good bullets. It burned and bent the daylights out of brass, though--the M1A was a lot more reloader-friendly, and almost as accurate.

I still think that polygonal form rifling can get along with cast boolits just fine, once we know some dimensions to deal with. There may need to be some fuel weight adjustments to compensate for more or less constriction by this bore form, but there are just too many people having good results with cast boolits in these barrels to dismiss the polygonal form out of hand for the castings.

[versifier]

Joe,
I don't think there could be any lead buildup there either. I think the Kabooms in Glocks are most often caused by weakened cases, but that is my opinion. I am also of the opinion that there are more than one cause of SEE's, and a lot of the confusion in trying to figure out why they are happening is that many are searching for only one universal cause in different actions and circumstances. We would all like simple answers to every problem we encounter, but often many different causes can yield the same result. Why should this be any different? If we were looking for easy answers we would be buying factory ammo, wouldn't we? :smile:

[StarMetal]

Deputy Al,

That measurement is from one of the rounded bottom grooves to the other rounded bottom groove. I find .451 to be the norm for alot of 45acp barrels, so no surprise there. Only difference is mayb the Glocks grooves aren't as deep, but then again most 45acp barrels have pretty shallow rifling. I'd say for what tightness there may be the glossy smoothness of the Glocks bore would reduce friction.

Well I get time I'll slug the bore on that HP UPC carbine and post a pic and we'll compare them.

Versifier,

I'll have to agree I don't think lead build up is the cause of the blowups either. Those lead loads could have easily been reloaded on brass that had it web area weakened from previous firings.

Wouldn't it be something if it WASN'T lead build up and all those fellows bought aftermarker barrels?

Joe

[StarMetal]

I got around to slugging the bore on my HK UPC 45acp Carbine. First off it's dead on .452. Okay, the rifling is very similar to the Glocks, BUT instead of having a distinctive land and groove like the Glock, the lands and grooves are very muted, they so smoothly blend into one another there is really no distinct line of where one stops and the other begins. There are six of whatever they are as compared to the 8 grooves of the Glock. Here's picture of the HK slug.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

Joe--

THANKS AGAIN for posting the pics--pictures truly are worth a thousand words.

I think the main motivators for me to pursue the aftermarket barrels are 1) better case support to guard against kB's and 2) slower and more reasonable rifling twists.

Both of your photos show some pretty steeply-pitched twist rates, but the polygonal form may grab the slugs a LOT more securely than does the round form/lands pattern. That may solve half of the issue--engagement of the boolit in the twist. It leaves unresolved the "over-spun" question, which could contribute to radial dispersion downrange from center-of-form vs. center-of-gravity discrepancies--e.g., an off-center air pocket in a #452374.

You can also discern that poor weather is keeping us out of reloading rooms and off of ranges. :-)

[StarMetal]

Deputy Al,

Okay you quizzed so here's the answers. The rifling twist on the Glock is 1 in 15.75 inches and the HK UPC twisti is 1 in 16 inches. Norm for 45 acp.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

The pics make the engraved surfaces look like the pitch is a lot tighter. Thanks for clearing that up.