Glock frame cracks, revisited
alarman
I spoke with a Glock tech. today. They are going to replace my cracked Glock
19 frame under warranty due to a manufacturing defect. (My gun was made in
May of 1989. Serial # FC###US)
Since I'm in California though, they have to send it to an FFL, do
paperwork, waiting period, etc. <sigh>
Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a one-of-a-kind Fulton Armory AR-15 tactical rifle while defending
liberty in a front-line state. MPFO raffle details at http://www.myguns.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank
# Progress report:
# I spoke with a Glock tech. today. They are going to replace my cracked Glock
# 19 frame under warranty due to a manufacturing defect. (My gun was made in
# May of 1989. Serial # FC###US)
#
# Since I'm in California though, they have to send it to an FFL, do
# paperwork, waiting period, etc. <sigh>
# Jack
That's good to know. I'm sure your's failed because of accelerated
heat aging but nylon extreme long term stability, in my mind, is
questionable. Many years ago, I saw some of the first nylon fibers
ever made. They were stored in a glass case and were said to have
lost most of their strength after 50 years. OTOH there must be some
very old nylon gun stocks around. Wonder how they are holding up.
Frank
spike
# On Feb 6, 7:45 pm, "alarman" <alarman2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# # Progress report:
# # I spoke with a Glock tech. today. They are going to replace my cracked Glock
# # 19 frame under warranty due to a manufacturing defect.
# # [snip]
# # Jack
#
# That's good to know. I'm sure your's failed because of accelerated
# heat aging but nylon extreme long term stability, in my mind, is
# questionable.
# [snip]
# Frank
#
It sounds to me as though Glock was pretty clear it was a mfg. defect
R M
break down with exposure to sunlight. The ultraviolet light if I recall
correctly. Polymer I don't know.
R.M.R.
around.#Wonder how they are holding up.
~~~~~
Well Frank I have an old Remington model 66 that's been well used for
about 40 yrs and the stock still looks fine.Granted it has it's share
of character dings but no cracks inside or out...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
R.M.R.
are going to replace my cracked Glock 19 frame under warranty due to a
FC###US)
~~~~~
Well that's pretty white of them replacing the frame seeing you could
of lost some of your mug but my opinion is they should of offered you
(a whole new pistol) like Browning done for me...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
> ...
Gandalf
<alarm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#Progress report:
#I spoke with a Glock tech. today. They are going to replace my cracked Glock
#19 frame under warranty due to a manufacturing defect. (My gun was made in
#May of 1989. Serial # FC###US)
#
#Since I'm in California though, they have to send it to an FFL, do
#paperwork, waiting period, etc. <sigh>
#Jack
#
I had no doubt that Glock would replace the frame. The pics showed no
signs of physical abuse.
It's simply good public relations for Glock to replace the frame.
Lord knows they get enough bad press every time there's another Glock
KB!
Frank
# Nylon or polymer? I believe there is a difference. Nylon is known to
# break down with exposure to sunlight. The ultraviolet light if I recall
# correctly. Polymer I don't know.
#
Nylon is a polymer. I assume the Glock frame is nylon from other
notes I have read.
It would not be pure nylon but a blend with toughening agents,
colorants and stabilizers.
There are two main nylons: nylon 6 and 6/6. Nylons are similar. All
polymers, to varying degrees, depending on chemical structure, are
degraded by light and oxygen which is accelerated by heat. Solvents,
oils etc can also attack polymers. Nylon is pretty resistant.
Frank
R M
MCheu
wrote:
# Nylon or polymer? I believe there is a difference. Nylon is known to
#break down with exposure to sunlight. The ultraviolet light if I recall
#correctly. Polymer I don't know.
Polymer is a generic term for any organic compound that is formed by
linking of multiple, identical molecular units. That includes Nylon,
since Nylon *is* a polymer.
I doubt you'll ever find out what the specific composition of any
manufacturer's polymer frames is, as it's kind of a trade secret
thing. When they describe their frames as being made of "polymer,"
they may as well just say it's made of "stuff." The word's just as
accurate, and about as descriptive. There was some speculation when
the first Glock17 arrived on the scene what it was made of, but I
don't think anyone's ever gotten anything definitive out of Glock --
trade secrets, and all that.
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
MCheu
GatherNoMoss
The Glock frame is made out of a high-tech plastic polymer called
nylon 6. Exactly what that means, I don't know. But our resident
engineer [MarkCO] was kind enough to provide some explanation:
Commerical price for hi-grade Nylon 6 is about $3.50/lb. Commerical
price for hi-carbon steel is about $1.50/lb. Sounds to me like the
Glock is actually a better buy. Anyway, I did a little research and
got a smattering of information on the Glock plastic "formula". One
source says "more highly guarded than the Coke formula". From 3 human
and 5 technical sources, Glock uses an out-sourced proprietary hybrid
polymer mix with a base of Nylon 6. The frames are cast and offer high
strength, wear resistance, abrasion resistance, and good resiliency,
good ductility and toughness. Fracture mechanics are excellent with
defect ratios below 1. Do not compare to extruded Nylons because it is
different. Casting prices range from $3-$50/pound depending on process
and intricacy. The Glock is considered highly-intricate due to
imbedded metallic components. Offers long term performance at elevated
and depressed temperatures. Chemically stable in a majority of
environments, attacked directly by strong acids and bases (better than
steel actually). UV exposure results in degradation over an extended
period of time. 2-3% carbon black virtually eliminates UV degradation
and Carbon-Black does not become readily absorbed in Nylons offering
higly increased useful life spans. Loss of mechanical properties with
2% Carbon-Black is less than 0.05% on an elevated UV exposure test
equivalent to approximately 100 years. Hyrdolytically attacked by
water in excess of 120 degrees. Basically, no hot-tubbing with your
Glock and you will be fine. Tupperware is not made from Nylon BTW.
Hope this answered some questions.
http://www.glockfaq.com/generalinfo.htm#polymer
viczena
over the empty handgrip with his truck.
and as far as i remember : the glock polymer is not very affected by
sunlight or acid, but somehow vulnerable to a base. so dont cloak the
handgrip into a strong base over an extended period of time..
peter
--
------------------------
www.atlatus.de
"Jetzt aber soll der, der einen Geldbeutel hat, ihn mitnehmen und ebenso die
Tasche. Wer aber kein Geld hat, soll seinen Mantel verkaufen und sich dafür
ein Schwert kaufen."
Lukas 22,36
"Gandalf" <g.ga...@lycos.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqccgs$kau$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Robert Scott
"GatherNoMoss" <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eqdu94$ecq$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
R.M.R.
on the scene what it was made of, but I don't think anyone's ever
gotten anything definitive out of Glock -- trade secrets, and all
that.
~~~~~
I broke the secret, whatever they are made of they are ((((( X-Ray
Proof)))) o-,'
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
Robert Scott
alarman
# sorry, the pictures showed all signs of physical abuse. as if someone
# drove over the empty handgrip with his truck.
Really? I would think the cracks would be located more to the bottom portion
of the magazine well if that were the case. The gun has not been abused,
just left in a fanny pack for many years.
Jack
Dave Hinz
# On Feb 6, 8:35�pm, "Frank" <frank.logu...@dol.net> wrote:
# # That's good to know. I'm sure your's failed because of accelerated
# # heat aging but nylon extreme long term stability, in my mind, is
# # questionable.
# It sounds to me as though Glock was pretty clear it was a mfg. defect
Some companies will do a goodwill warranty replacement if they can't
explain the failure one way or the other. I don't think we have enough
information to decide based on what we've seen.
Either way, nice to know that Glock didn't stiff the guy, isn't it?
Sasquatch
# Polymer is a generic term for any organic compound that is formed by
# linking of multiple, identical molecular units. That includes Nylon,
# since Nylon *is* a polymer.
#
# I doubt you'll ever find out what the specific composition of any
# manufacturer's polymer frames is, as it's kind of a trade secret
# thing. When they describe their frames as being made of "polymer,"
# they may as well just say it's made of "stuff." The word's just as
# accurate, and about as descriptive.
So it's about like saying, "... made from a space age alloy..."?
Sasquatch
viczena
means: dont use it), it maybe last as long as a glock grip.
peter
--
------------------------
www.atlatus.de
"Jetzt aber soll der, der einen Geldbeutel hat, ihn mitnehmen und ebenso die
Tasche. Wer aber kein Geld hat, soll seinen Mantel verkaufen und sich dafür
ein Schwert kaufen."
Lukas 22,36
"R M" <col...@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqdu86$ec8$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
viczena
maybe you already bought the guns with these cracks, and didnt realize it
until now?
peter
Dave Hinz
# no, the frame would crack exactly where your cracks are located.
# maybe you already bought the guns with these cracks, and didnt realize it
# until now?
Maybe he's closer to the situation than you are and in a better position
to judge? In any case, the interesting parts of the conversation are
that for some reason, probably storage conditions-related based on what
we've been told, the cracks developed. The manufacturer replaced it at
no cost. I think that covers the important aspects of the question,
doesn't it?
alarman
news:eqhjnh$lvr$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# no, the frame would crack exactly where your cracks are located.
#
# maybe you already bought the guns with these cracks, and didnt realize it
# until now?
I have to disagree with you there. Anyway, no such crushing ever occured.
And again, Glock stated that there was a manufacturing defect in some
pistols made at the time.
Jack
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
Oh brother spare me the sales hype. At one of the manufacturing
plants I worked in we were given the same baloney and talked into
replacing steel bearings on a very slow moving conveyor that had
lasted almost 40 years. We replace them with UHMW rollers which
lasted all of about two weeks despite the fact the conveyor system was
so slow that a tortoise could have won a race against it.
I must say you did not take into consideration the cost of machining
high grade steel and heat treating it as this is why it is so much
cheaper to use JUNK PLASTIC in a pistol frame. Lets face it Glock
could not make its el-cheapo piecs of junk for $60 bucks and then sell
them for $600 plus if quality machined metals were used in the
manufacture of a "real pistol".
Quote from Herr Glock taken from THE RIFLE MAGAZINE. "I make cheap
plastic thow away pistols for cheap plastic throw away plastic
soliders". End quote.
browningh...@yahoo.com
I think we should all realize that today's firearms are the made with
the cheapest materials possible and with the least hand labor.
Result, you do not get your moneys worth one iota. Materials like
junk plastic, junk stamped sheet metal and junk castings are a fare
cry from the finely hand crafted , forged steel, deep blue luster of
the "works of art" of the past.
If you are looking for a crudely made machine that may or may not have
spare parts available ( you will need a lot of spare parts) and are
willing to spend a lot of money to buy it then the modern made junker
may serve your needs. On the other hand if you are looking for
INVESTMENT AND QUALTY then the classic handgun has no peer or
substitute.
I think today the average "Mr. John Q. Public" has been conditioned to
live in a "throw away society" and he has come to accept the fact that
the products he buys will not last long and he will be very lucky if
they work right out of the box. This year alone a fellow colleague of
mine, that seldom learns anything from past experience, has bought
over half a dozen modern made handguns, NONE OF WHICH WORKED RIGHT OUT
OF THE BOX, and one went back to the factory 3 times and the factory
could not fix it. It was a plastic Kel-Tech, need I say more? Other
guns included Taurus and Glock. I myself had one of the very first .
45acp Glocks and after 3 trips back to the factory GLOCK ACTUALLY
ADMITTED THEY HAD A PROBLEM, I AM SURE A FIRST IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY
OF THE ARROGANT COMPANY and that for the present it could not be
fixed. I later learned that the idiots at Glock were actually
shipping 40 cal. Glock magazines with their .45acp pistols because
they had not yet went into producing a 45 acp magazines and had
assumed that the 40 would work with the .45acp. Well it kind of
worked some of the time and to them this was "GOOD ENOUGH", typical
modern factory thinking.
Anyone that is past 50 years of age and or has worked with machinery
in industry does not have to be educated as to the big change in guns
that actually began after WWII with the introductions of junk cast
parts and stamped sheet metal and plastic parts that came about when
Nations realized that weapons and people get used up very fast in
modern wars I.E BY THE MILLIONS.
The Russians who had more practical sense the Germans rapidly
designed cheaply produced "mass weapons" to be carried by "cannon
fodder" i.e. their soldiers. The old school thinking that
professional warriors took great pride in their personal weapons was
now passe in modern warfare that used neither "professional warriors"
but instead used conscripted cannon fodder who did not need or
appreciate a weapon that was a work of art. Diddo for the Modern John
Q Public who in most cases would not today recognize a quality weapon
if it came up and shot him in the foot.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the "cheap skate" that in
order to justify his sub-conscience guilt feeling for the "modern made
piece of junk" he just shelled out his limited money for, then
proceeds to shout from the roof tops that he is now the proud owner of
"the latest and greatest" piece of technology ever produced. Of
course he fools no one but himself and cannot fathom at the shooting
range when he uncases his latest "plastic and stamped sheet metal
fantastic" why "old time gun owners" instantly get a little "green
around the gills" and quickly make a quick trip to the "rest room" to
puke out there guts.
STILL I WILL ADMIT THAT THE "MODERN MADE JUNKER" DOES HAVE ITS
PRACTICAL USES. If you can get one that is working they are light in
weight and in the case of the Glock have the same weight trigger pull
from the first shot onward and they are instantly ready to fire which
is both good and bad. Yes it is ready to shoot "right now" if you
are suddenly attacked and it is also "ready to shoot right now" if you
get careless with it and with its lack of any meaningful maunual
safety which can get you accidentally shot by your own weapon or
worse yet get someone else you do not want shot.
History already abounds in regards to such accidental shootings,
which the "right wing Neanderthals" refuse to read about or admit. A
manual safety (horrors of horrors to "The it will never happen to me
crowd" and an easily seen cocking indicator and functional de-cocker,
which many other plastic pistols already have, is cause for instant
riots among the Glock-o-philes who often have taken years of training
to learn how to operate their Glock pistols even in the unsafe mode
"i.e. stick it in my waist band or pocket with no holster" .After all
it has a trigger safety doesn't it ? Don't laugh I am not being
facetious, it happens every day any anyone who still reads an old
fashioned News Paper attest to the problem. Witness the innocent
victims accidentally shot by police officers using Glocks. There are
also lawsuits that are a matter of public record. Much info about
this has been published in "Gun Week" down through the years. So all
you Glock-o-philes please call "Gun Week" nasty names (not me) for
reporting the incidents and the court cases. And yes "Gun Week" will
continue to report such news no matter how much you tell them not to
because you like Glocks.
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE MODERN MADE JUNKER ARE that a carry gun, no
matter how particular and careful you are runs the very great risk of
getting nicks and wear on the outside finish and in some cases even
rust if stored under the seat of a car in all kinds of weather. Now
this is not the environment that you would want to carry a super
expensive and classic 9mm like a Sig P10 or Browning High Power "T"
series but there are Yo Yo's out there that I have seen do it with the
most predictable results i.e. they ruined them. Now on the other hand
"who cares" if a plastic pistol gets beat up or rusted as it was junk
when it was new and is still junk when it gets beat up and they make
them every day. Its basically a disposable weapon and one even the
most caring of firearms owners will not get upset about when it gets
"beat up" from every day use.
Modern made working mans guns are not an investment because of their
"modern construction" and workmanship but they do serve a useful
purpose. In other words its an every day tool like a cheap Wal Mart
electric plastic hand drill. They both have a purpose, cheapest price
and limited life and no investment value and no guilt feelings when
the average John Q. Public beats the absolute "H" out of them in every
day use. Use them every day and there is no lose of investment as
they will never be a "collectors item" that is in the same class of
the "old time classic pistols". THEY ARE CHEAPLY MADE EVERY DAY
TOOLS, ITS AS SIMPLE AND HONEST AS THAT. YES, AS MUCH AS I DETEST
THEM THEY DO SERVE A USEFULL PURPOSE, BUT JUST BARELY..
Joe
debate. I like steel guns and prefer 1911s. My brother swears by Glock
and there is nothing I can say to change his mind. My father would
never buy a Glock but thinks highly of his Springfield XD. Fact is
there are two aproaches to the respective designs. Dispite the
comments that the poly guns are throw aways, they are engineered in
ways that Browning could have never imagined. Some of new polymer guns
may stand the test of time and still be around 100 years from now.
With the intro of the 1911 it utilized technology no one thought would
work, almost 100 years later they are still a much sought and reliable
platform. Just the engineering involved in the polymer material is
staggering. If Browning had these materials he would have used them.
JMHO.
Dave Hinz
# I think we should all realize that today's firearms are the made with
# the cheapest materials possible and with the least hand labor.
Cite, please? (Translation - you once again appear to be making an
unsupportable claim. Did you ever back up your "quote" of G. Glock by
the way? I may have missed it.)
# Result, you do not get your moneys worth one iota. Materials like
# junk plastic, junk stamped sheet metal and junk castings are a fare
# cry from the finely hand crafted , forged steel, deep blue luster of
# the "works of art" of the past.
You don't like modern guns. Yeah, we _got_ that part.
# If you are looking for a crudely made machine that may or may not have
# spare parts available ( you will need a lot of spare parts)
I've got, hm, maybe 20,000 rounds through my glock or so? Zero parts
needed. I wonder why that is; maybe I'm just using it wrong.
# and are
# willing to spend a lot of money to buy it then the modern made junker
# may serve your needs. On the other hand if you are looking for
# INVESTMENT AND QUALTY then the classic handgun has no peer or
# substitute.
Blah blah blah. I've got dozens of those "classic handguns", they're
fine. But you're badmouthing Glock when your statements are ignorant at
best, and probably fabricated in some cases.
I can't see any benefit in bothering to address the rest of your rant.
There's a guy here named Dean something, he's got a site, you should
hang out there. You guys seem to have a lot in common.
Dave Hinz
# Quote from Herr Glock taken from THE RIFLE MAGAZINE. "I make cheap
# plastic thow away pistols for cheap plastic throw away plastic
# soliders". End quote.
Month/Date/Publisher please? We can find the page...if it exists...
R.M.R.
these cracks, and didnt realize it until now?
~~~~~
((( Oh Brother! )))
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.M.R.
in a better position to judge?#In any case,#the interesting parts of
the conversation are that for some reason, probably storage conditions-
related based on what we've been told, the cracks developed.The
aspects of the question, doesn't it?
~~~~~
I also think it's safe to say the bottom line is (who on this thread
owns Glocks and who doesn't), It's just human nature regardless what
the product is to defend something you've been pumping up to your
friends only to find out it's not all it's made out to be...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem
para bellum) U.S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hinz
#
# I also think it's safe to say the bottom line is (who on this thread
# owns Glocks and who doesn't), It's just human nature regardless what
# the product is to defend something you've been pumping up to your
# friends only to find out it's not all it's made out to be...
I'm not pretending they're perfect, just that I have one, am perfectly
happy about it, and will refute unlikely statements made by what appears
to be a troll about the designer, his interpretations of perceived
design flaws, and so on. I don't care _who_ it is, when a quality
product is getting badmouthed without evidence to back it up, and I have
personal experience to the contrary, I will challenge that which I see
which doesn't agree with reality.
Dean Speir
# # Quote from Herr Glock taken from THE RIFLE MAGAZINE.
# # "I make cheap plastic thow away pistols for cheap plastic
# # throw away plastic soliders". End quote.
# Month/Date/Publisher please? We can find the page...if it exists...
Purportedly the January 2003 issue, Gaston Glock to Jeff Cooper during "a
meeting in Heidelberg, Germany."
If it's actually "Rifle Magazine" (http://www.riflemagazine.com/), it would
be from Wolfe Publications, but I haven't been able to authenticate anything
even remotely similar.
Had such an utterance been verified, I imagine it would have been on the
front page of the NY Times and Washington Post, and the noxious cloud of
incinerating polymer pistols would blanket the lower 48 for the next month.
While Gaston is indisputably arrogant... as was Jeff... he is not stupid!
# There's a guy here named Dean something,
# he's got a site, you should hang out there.
# You guys seem to have a lot in common.
No Dave, there's a difference, _this_ Dean has cites, documentation and in
the case of the one page which four years ago sent you into a swoon from
which you have yet to recover, peer review... you just haven't been able to
impeach any of it with your repeated ad hominem screeds and blather.
--
- Dean Speir <Dean...@thegunzone.com>
Formerly Famous Gunwriter / Gun Zone Maintainer
« =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= »
It's not a perfect world... it's why we _have_ guns!
The Gunperson's Authoritative Internet Information
Resource is at http://www.thegunzone.com.
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
Well I finally found it.
"The Accurate Rifle" January 2003, page 17, paragraph, 4
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
I've got, hm, maybe 20,000 rounds through my glock or so? Zero parts
needed. I wonder why that is; maybe I'm just using it wrong.
Baloney, recoil springs give up the ghost at about 5,000 rounds and
glock mags don't last that long either (even the great propagandist
for glock Chucky Taylor admitted that one in print, shock of shocks.)
Dave Hinz
# On Feb 10, 1:42 pm, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@gmail.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
# I've got, hm, maybe 20,000 rounds through my glock or so? Zero parts
# needed. I wonder why that is; maybe I'm just using it wrong.
#
# Baloney, recoil springs give up the ghost at about 5,000 rounds and
# glock mags don't last that long either (even the great propagandist
# for glock Chucky Taylor admitted that one in print, shock of shocks.)
My direct personal experience differs from your statements.
viczena
peter
--
------------------------
www.atlatus.de
"Jetzt aber soll der, der einen Geldbeutel hat, ihn mitnehmen und ebenso die
Tasche. Wer aber kein Geld hat, soll seinen Mantel verkaufen und sich dafür
ein Schwert kaufen."
Lukas 22,36
"alarman" <alarm...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqj1ud$61s$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
viczena
If you are looking for a crudely made machine that may or may not have
spare parts available ( you will need a lot of spare parts) and are
the classic 1911 (old rusty)
may serve your needs. On the other hand if you are looking for
substitute.
peter
--
------------------------
www.atlatus.de
"Jetzt aber soll der, der einen Geldbeutel hat, ihn mitnehmen und ebenso die
Tasche. Wer aber kein Geld hat, soll seinen Mantel verkaufen und sich dafür
ein Schwert kaufen."
Lukas 22,36
<browningh...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqj8dg$a0g$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
viczena
maybe YOUR recoils springs give up at 5000 rounds. and hopefully you have a
gunsmith with enough spare parts nearby...
and maybe YOUR mags need a refurbishment every 1000 rounds, because you get
endless malfunction. a glock mag works until it i completly worn out. my
mags are still working after 15 years of hard use.
you should only write about the things, you have personal experience with.
and not about quotings of some materials you somewhere heard or read of...
peter
--
<browningh...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqmv3d$76q$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
sta...@prolynx.com
# On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:36:13 +0000 (UTC), browninghighpow...@yahoo.com <browninghighpow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# # On Feb 10, 1:42 pm, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@gmail.com> wrote:
# # > ...
# #
# # I've got, hm, maybe 20,000 rounds through my glock or so? Zero parts
# #
# # Baloney, recoil springs give up the ghost at about 5,000 rounds and
# # for glock Chucky Taylor admitted that one in print, shock of shocks.)
#
# My direct personal experience differs from your statements.
#
As does mine. I've got a first generation 17L that's got at least
40K through it and is still on the original non-drop-free mag it came
with. I got it used and I don't know how many it had shot before I
got it. I use the non-drop-free at the range, during the Clinton era
I didn't want to put more wear on hard-to-get drop-free high-caps than
I had to.
I had some Clintonized 10rd. 17 mags that got chewed up at the front
during normal feeding, an armorer at one GSSF match allowed as it was
a design error and to send them back. Springs were fine, though.
Only Glock mag problems I've ever had and they still fed fine, just
got chewed up.
My 20 has about 20K rounds through it, I changed the recoil spring
assembly last year only because the edges were getting worn where they
mated with the barrel and it was getting to be a pain to reassemble,
not because the spring wasn't up to the task anymore. I have had zero
problems with magazines on that.
I HAVE heard, but haven't personally had experience, that the
subcompacts are harder on recoil springs. My 29 is fairly new and
hasn't had that many rounds through it yet.
My experience with Glocks is that you pull the trigger, they go bang.
KEEP THE FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO GO BANG. If
folks can't do that, then Glocks(and arguably, any other make of
handgun) aren't for them.
Stan
Dwight Gruber
<sta...@prolynx.com> wrote in message
news:eqq5lc$ra4$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Feb 11, 8:26 am, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@gmail.com> wrote:
# My experience with Glocks is that you pull the trigger, they go bang.
# KEEP THE FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO GO BANG.
And any other stray item which might conceivably find its way in there under
who-knows-what unusual or unexpected circumstance.
Any "safety" system which will ALWAYS go bang when the trigger is depressed
is no safety at all. For the life of me, I can't understand why otherwise
perfectly rational and safety-conscious shooters put their faith in, let
alone proselytize, a gun without a positive manual safety.
DwightG
Dave Hinz
#
# Any "safety" system which will ALWAYS go bang when the trigger is depressed
# is no safety at all. For the life of me, I can't understand why otherwise
# perfectly rational and safety-conscious shooters put their faith in, let
# alone proselytize, a gun without a positive manual safety.
You mean like pretty much every revolver in history?
viczena
delusions?
the only time, you really need a manual safety is with a SA 1911, carried
cocked. otherwise any modern design does not need any manual safety. just
keep your finger off the trigger.
see for example the S&W M&P series, where they included the manual safety
for cal .45 just for the neverending legue of yesteryears. an not for any
rational purpose...
peter
"Dwight Gruber" <dwi...@pacifier.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eqqrf9$8dr$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
chang
# <sta...@prolynx.com> wrote in message
# news:eqq5lc$ra4$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...# # My experience with Glocks is that you pull the trigger, they go bang.
# # KEEP THE FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO GO BANG.
#
# And any other stray item which might conceivably find its way in there under
# who-knows-what unusual or unexpected circumstance.
#
# Any "safety" system which will ALWAYS go bang when the trigger is depressed
# is no safety at all. For the life of me, I can't understand why otherwise
# perfectly rational and safety-conscious shooters put their faith in, let
# alone proselytize, a gun without a positive manual safety.
To each his own. I want my guns to always go BANG when the trigger is
depressed. Passive safeties were never designed to serve the same
function as manual safeties. Also, revolvers don't have manual safeties.
I assume that you think they're unsafe?
Phil