I would be interested in seeing Glock's explanation on why they do not recommend lead in their barrels. Everything I have read was anecdotal. No real facts other than those that shoot it and never have problems. Wonder if there are any real world examples out there showing there is a problem with it?

Rosewood

I've never owned a Glock and have never fired one. In 1989 when these guns were pretty new on the scene, a friend bought one. I had been doing extensive work with three 9mm pistols, a Beretta 92F, a Walther P4, and an S&W (don't recall the model but it was a much later development than the 39).

I had developed a cast bullet handload that worked well in my three guns and functioned reliably. I have no reason to believe my ammo was out of spec as I used a .356" bullet then but switched to a .358" bullet sometime later. Even with the larger bullet, it's slightly under SAAMI specs as I've measured it with a micrometer.

When I tried my handload in the Glock, it locked up tightly. With difficulty, I was finally able to get the slide back and eject the cartridge. That was my sole experience with Glock and cast bullets. I had no use for any handgun that didn't work with such handloads.

I still shoot the Beretta and Walther, along with a Sig P226 that I purchased in 1989. These guns have had many thousands of rounds of cast bullet handloads fired through them. I don't recall a single malfunction.

Just a few sources:
Close sidebar

American Hunter | Lead for Glocks?

Shooting lead in Glocks | Firearms Talk


Seems to me to be enough of a consensus to not do it. If I did do it, I’d clean the barrel with a Lewis Lead Remover every time. I bought some lead 230 grain .45 ACP a few years ago. I’m just trying to use it up. Doesn’t load or shoot as well as my plated bullets do.

Newer Glocks may handle cast bullets, though I don't know this for sure and likely will never find out. I did no investigation when I found my cast bullet loads would not chamber in a Glock more than thirty years ago, so offer no ideas other than maybe a tight chamber and that may be wrong.

As for cast bullets in handguns generally, if a cast bullet doesn't shoot well, as with your .45 bullets, they probably are not the right fit for your gun or are the wrong alloy for your load, or both. A properly fit cast bullet of the proper alloy for your load will at least equal or often exceed the accuracy of a good jacketed bullet or plated bullet.

I have three .45 ACP’s. A Colt GI from 1944, a S&W 4566, and a S&W M&P. In the M&P, the slide would sometimes not go fully into battery. I had to bump it to close. The lead worked fine in the GI 1911 and the 4566. Plated bullets chamber fine in the M&P. These were 230 grain bullets from Missouri Bullet Company.

Can always get an aftermarket barrel with conventional rifling, if the stock barrel doesn't like the cast being shot through it.

__________________
To cannon, all men are equal

Disregard.

Thanks for the heads-up about lead in the Glock. I'll stick with PC for now. I make both.

Attached Images

pcsizing.jpg (50.5 KB, 22 views)

I know. That’s what I’d do if I was going to shoot lead.

Interesting. Read the "Glock" provided explanation and basically said lead builds up faster and the gun needs to be cleaned more often is the reason you shouldn't use lead.

That applies to all guns!! Duh.

I'll point out that Gen 5 barrels have a different rifling. Haven't shot a ton of cast through mine yet, but my eyeball estimate is that it's more lead friendly than previous generations.

__________________
To cannon, all men are equal

Max,

I'm not a Glock fanboy. However, the recommendation concerning the use of bare lead bullets is based on the polyginal (sp?) rifling in the barrel. Seems that lead buildup increases chamber pressure significantly. It would seem polycoating bullets negates this concern.
After having seen the aftermath of a Glock kaboom, even though it wasn't the result of shooting lead, I wouldn't try bare lead and risk a kaboom!

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

I don’t like Glocks for the same reason I don’t like H&K, they’re both awkwardly bulky feeling and ugly.

__________________
Sure you did

I don't trust a handgun that stores enough energy in the mechanism to dent the primer in the case of a malfunction. That is why I carry a J-frame .357 Smith and Wesson. The only way it will fire is I pull the trigger hard enough to make the hammer dent the primer in the double action mode.

Try again chief!
Do you actually know anything about a Glock?

Probably the main problem that Glocks have is people who know very little about them or how they work spouting their opinions as “information”.

Am glocklover, the safety depends on you .

Same thing goes about shooting cast boolits...

Glocks, like other firearms, are as safe as the people using them.

The G26 is my favorite Glock. I've owned 2 of them over the years. My second favorite is the G27. I still own the G26 I bought in '04 (after adding Glock to my list of armorer classes back than), as well as the LNIB G27 I bought from Glock (Rep Demo gun for a magazine article back then).

Glock has three mechanical safeties designed into them.

Safe Action System

It's important to use a good quality holster that protects the trigger, and to make sure that nothing enters the holster that might become entangled with the trigger and cause the trigger to move and fire the gun. This means normal inspection of whatever holster is chosen, to make sure it remains in good, normal operating condition.

An aging, worn leather holster that permits the trigger (and it's integral safety lever) to be moved may result in a ND. Case in point ...

Worn Leather Holsters SAFETY WARNING: Accidental Discharges

Also, if a bit of clothing - drawstring, end of shirt or coat tail, etc - enters the mouth of the holster when the gun is being holstered, and becomes entangled with the trigger, if could cause the trigger to be pressed.

Now, the Glock uses a grip angle of approx 23 degrees, which is different than that of many revolvers, as well as many pistols which use a more traditional 18 degree grip angle, so the shooter must acclimate to the change in grip angle (using the sights is a good way to learn how any particular shooter's grip/wrist technique may have to be adjusted ).

Make sure to read (or download and read) the owner safety manual to become familiar with safe field-stripping and reassembly. Since Glock requires pulling the trigger on an empty chamber to field-strip the gun, it requires attention to proper safety practices.

If I were only going to own ONE Glock, it would be the G26. If I ere going to only own TWO of them, the second would be a G27. Which is what I presently own.

Using good quality, factory ammunition, such as that made by the big name makers in America, are a good way to help maintain optimal feeding and functioning (like with other pistols ).

BTW, like the OP, I mostly carry a pocket-holstered J-frame in my retirement. (Like I was doing the last several years of my career, comes to that. ) However, I have been carrying an older 3" M36 in an old leather paddle, and sometimes one of my J's in a vintage (new/old stock) crossdraw holster I found a year or so ago, since it reminds me of my early days as a cop. (It was made by a local leather maker who specialized in leather police gear when I was a young cop, so there's some nostalgia involved.)

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I don't trust the Glock 10mm too many videos of them coming apart. I have enjoyed the 17 19 and 26 models but I like S&W better for numerous reasons.

Yes - All guns are safe (even Glocks).

Not until they are manipulated does the level of safety decline.

Some groups of manipulators make them less safe than others.

Um, OK. Are you familiar with how DA/SA guns work? I guess not.

And even DAO, I have no concerns about my engagement times. I have been shooting DA platforms since I was 14.

If the pistol in question was a HK VP70 staple gun, your point might have some accuracy.

Try again.

In the Glock armorer classes we've been told that the polygonal bore "rifling" creates a tighter "seal" around the bullet during its passage.

It was said that higher pressures may result if build up of leading occurs in the bore if all-lead bullets are used, and that such higher pressures may result in barrel damage and be unsafe. Glock has no way to know the hardness of the lead bullets anyone may decide to use in their guns, and whether they will be hard enough to prevent leading. It's easier to simply warn against using all-lead bullets in their barrels.

Liability is a big concern, including among gun makers (of course). If someone chooses to act contrary to Glock's warnings? Well, don't expect Glock to volunteer to accept responsibility for any problems that may result.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

No, they are not.

For over 20 years, I carried a compact 1911. Cocked and locked. But thumb safety and grip safety meant I could re-holster with confidence.

For 3 years I carried a M&P9 with thumb safety. I had to make sure the thumb safety was held up by my thumb when I re-holstered.

Now I'm carrying Glock. I have to make damned sure I'm looking at the holster and the gun as I re-holster, lest any item of clothing, seat belt, or whatever else gets in there and causes a discharge.

My son was in the Army and he loves them. I have never shot a Glock and am hesitant to buy one, but mostly because too many people are on the fence about owning one and if I am correct, they only have a 1 year limited warranty. I want something that looks more appealing and has a better warranty while still be reliable and affordable for my budget. I have yet to decide what I will buy next but I am looking around for a 9mm/40cal with at least a 4 inch barrel or longer. (not for carry)

** Frailer ** mentioned a device that someone may be interested in for the Glock especially when holstering the gun.
I believe it is the "Striker Control Device".
And thank you for your service sir. And all other veterans.
Striker Control Device



– Tau Development Group

About 1/3rd of the posts on this thread are Glock haters who keep jumping back in over and over trying to justify their Glock hate.

To the OP, I agree if you want to ask a Glock question and expect to get unbiased feedback, it ain't here. Oh, similarly, I don't go to the Glock forum and expect to get unbiased feedback on vintage revolvers either.

__________________
Live long and prosper

That trigger "safety" is a joke . Can't fire until thats depressed right? Guess what, that would be the situation if it didn't have that flippy lever. Anything , a lipstick, pencil, etc. can push the lever. Add the atrocious Luger grip angle and the 3.5 lb. trigger, and it is not an overly attractive piece to me. I'd much prefer the Springfield XD with it's grip safety.
Ive had Glocks going back twenty five , wanted to like em, just can't. That's why I have a Government Model, a Sig P6, and a Springfield 911- Sig 238 clone. All with external hammers. And safeties or decocker

This once more bears repeating: The Glock was designed as a military service pistol, for use by personnel who often have minimal training.

The grip angle was chosen so that most people would find it an instinctive pointer, and they do. I certainly find it so. People who have been conditioned to other grip angles have to learn the new one and this applies to most firearms transitions.

The trigger safety was added late in the design process when it was found that, if dropped at just the right angle, the trigger had just enough momentum to sometimes trip. It was a bit like the firing pin on the 1911 or the rebound lever on WW2 and earlier S&W revolvers. It's not there to keep you from putting your finger in the trigger guard and pulling the trigger.

Most Glocks have an actual trigger pull weight of 5 or 6 pounds or more,depending on how they are ordered, about the same ballpark as most military service pistols.

The highly subjective attractiveness factor doesn't mean squat to those selecting a military service pistol. In any case, I don't see much esthetic difference between a Glock 17 and a parkerized, plastic-gripped 1911A1. I know which one I'd trust more to work right out of the box.

Planners for large militaries have to think of things like amounts of strategic resources, number of parts required, and costs of equipping and training, as well as how quickly their troops will learn to get effective hits. The Glock has been highly successful because it addressed all of those areas well.

Other designs have come along in the 3+ decades since the Glock was introduced that can compete with it, not by trying to turn the clock back, but by adopting the paradigm and offering variations. That's as it should be and firearms history is full of examples of this.

But the Glock was a game-changer, just as the FN High Power, the 1911, the Luger, the various European DA revolvers, etc. were in their time, before Gaston Glock and his company went after that Austrian contract.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

If the warranty is keeping you away from Glocks, then don’t worry about it. Glock will take care of anything basically forever. I just bought a Gen 2 Glock made in 1993. It’s an NYPD gun and I carried almost that exact gun way back then. I figured being 28 years old and having shot mainly +P duty ammo for that time, it might need a once over. I called Glock and they said send it in. They got it in 12/22, and I had it back in my hands on 12/24. Nearly every internal component and every spring was replaced. Other than the $15 it cost me to ship, and the $106 for the new night sights I requested, they charged me nothing. Even sent it back in a factory hard case. I didn’t bother sending the mags because I replaced the springs myself, but if I had, they would have put new ones in, as well.

By the way, I believe Glocks are “safe”. But they are “less safe” than hammer fired or striker fired without a safety. They are more susceptible to human error. I have several M&P pistols, and the all have external safeties. I never plan to carry the Glock 19 I just bought. I have other guns for carry. The 19 was bought for nostalgia and for range use. But if I ever carry that 19 or any other Glock, I would definitely get that striker control device. Placing my thumb over the striker plate would be just like placing my thumb in the hammer as I holster. If the company made one for the M&P line, I’d have one on all my M&P’s. I’m never going to be as comfortable holstering a striker gun as I am a hammer fired one.

*KBM* Thanks for the reply and the info. I would say that is outstanding service from Glock. Just guessing they don't want to advertise it.

ALso... thanks for your service as a LEO

By the way I just order one each of these two pistols ...
... S&W Law Enf, M&P40 M2.0 Compact, 12098, 4", 3x13 mags (striker)
... Walther Creed 9mm Full-size 16rd 4" Pistol 2815516 (hammer)
And I appreciate everyone's help and opinions here on this site.

I am surprised to hear anyone finds the Luger- I mean, Glock grip angle a natural pointer. Especially since that's one of the biggest gripes I've heard from others.
It terrifies me how many times I've seen young guys bring their wives/girlfriends into a gunstore to get their first pistol, and go straight to the Glock case, when they should be looking at da revolvers...imho anyway...

^^^ Here's the thing about a lot of Glock haters . . . not only do they hate Glocks, but it seems to be important to them that others hate them too.

Fortunately, there are a lot of Glock owners who are completely satisfied with the product and, obviously, the vast majority of Glock owners are just as safe as other brand firearm owners. Funny thing to, I don't seem to recall any Glock owners wagging their fingers at other brand gun owners.

Shoot what you like to shoot, it's all good.

__________________
Live long and prosper

I’m surely not a Glock hater, but I have found Glock fans to be extremely condescending towards all other brands of guns. If the OP on this thread had posted his thread in a Glock forum, he would have gotten far different responses. I participated in a thread similar to this, asking why Glocks don’t offer a safety model like other makers do, and the responses were not kind.

The gray matter safety is more likely to fail than a mechanical one.

This from John Farnam - the gun in question was a S&W, not a Glock, but his conclusions at the end of the post seem generally applicable to most any handgun. And, yes, any handgun can bite you if you're sloppy:

“Funny things, accidents. You never have them, until you're having them!”
AA Milne

From a Police Chief in TX:

“Last week, a fellow and his wife were parked after dark at one of our local convenience stores. Before going into the store, the male (driver) retrieved a kydex IWB holster containing his M&P Shield (9mm, no manual safety) from the console of his SUV and was attempting to put the whole thing inside his waistband (appendix position) while still sitting in the vehicle.

While trying to finesse the package into place inside his pants, the gun discharged!

The round was a Hornady 9mm Critical Defense. It performed as advertised! The single round entered his abdomen and did not exit.

The pistol (now clear of the holster) was subsequently found by our officers on the passenger-side floorboard, with the spent case still in the chamber.

A bystander stopped and rendered aid, holding pressure on the entry wound, probably saving the injured man’s life!

Our EMS arrived quickly and transported the man to our local hospital where surgery was performed immediately.

Surgeons subsequently informed me that the bullet mercifully missed the femoral artery, but bleeding was still profuse!

The victim lived through it, but with some permanent disability likely.

The holster in question was well-used, and poorly maintained. One of the screws that secures it to the backing was loose. Another was missing. This allowed plenty of ‘flop,’ and the pistol was thus not well-supported.

The culprit in this case was likely an errant finger, which is the usual cause of UDs, but at this point a definitive cause is probably not discoverable.

Lessons:

Guns are dangerous! Can we say that too often? Poor gun-handling habits represent a time-bomb, as we see! When you can’t continuously wear your holster and gun while driving, get a combo that you can. Unnecessary gun-handling, such as taking guns off and putting them back on several times during the day, is relentlessly associated with UDs. If you’re going to wear a gun, wear it all day and don’t touch it (absent good cause).

Holstering a pistol while seated in a vehicle is not recommended, but when it is to be done, it has to be done with much care and attention to detail. I would not recommend putting a holster containing a loaded pistol (any brand of pistol) into your pants, in the appendix position, while seated in a vehicle, in the dark, under any circumstances!

Maintain your equipment! Most kydex holsters have screws. Screws come loose! Floppy, loose, worn-out, broken holsters are an invitation to disaster. Worn-out holsters need to be replaced with new ones!

Always have your trauma kit close-by, and be sure you know how and when to use everything in it. The bullet-hole you treat might be in you! Help may be on the way, but you are still the ‘first responder!’”

My comment: I don’t think it is possible to handle deadly weapons “safely.” Yet, I think we can handle them carefully.

Risk attaches to having guns in your life, no matter what brand of gun, and no matter what procedure you adhere to.

Risk also attaches to not having guns in your life!

We can teach you how to own, keep, store, carry, and use modern guns correctly, but there are still no guarantees.

In plain English, the term “guarantee,” translates to “false promise!”

/John"

__________________
Everybody could shoot

This is inaccurate. A Glock or any other striker fired pistol will fire when the trigger is pulled, whether the trigger was deliberately pulled or not.

That also applies to any other sidearm without an engaged external safety, whether grip safety or lever, or both.

The significant issue is holstering and reholstering and allowing clothing or any other obstruction to interfere with the pistol, and particularly the trigger.

Yep, if only the human trigger could pull it, my trigger pull gauge wouldn't work.

As much as I would prefer to carry a DA/SA pistol, they are slower on the very critical first shot than a striker fired pistol.

Imo, a striker fired pistol with a frame mounted 1911ish style safety is ideal. Thankfully available.

"years ago", the Russ won the olymics with a M U pistol without a safety AND threads on the barrel tip weight. the chinezs had to install a safety and no threads on the tip, on their version of the M U. the compitision was Smith and wesson.

Not being argumentative, but are you saying a striker-fired pistol equipped with a manual safety is a faster first shot than a DA/SA auto with the hammer down and the safety/de-cocker in the "fire" position?

__________________
Because of the metric system?

My SA/DAs do not have safeties. They are either decocked and ready to go, albeit slowly because of the long, heavy pull, or they are cocked with no safety. Sig P226, CZ SP 01 Phantom.

The answer is yes, a striker fired pistol equipped with a frame mounted 1911ish safety is faster. The safety is swept as the pistol is presented.

I can almost match times but I can’t match time and the precision of the first, critical shot. The striker fire wins, despite my preferred outcome.

All this means is that the boolits were seated out too far for that gun. The Glock must have had a shorter chamber.

I've been having excellent results with powder coated boolits in my Glock. Here's a quick 10 shot group at 25 yards.

Attached Images

105swc.jpg (68.5 KB, 5 views)

I started this thread. I've had my Glock for a little while now. Long enough to get to know it. Here's what I've found.
A Glock is just like any other gun. It is what it is. It's designed for a purpose. As a gun owner its my responsibility to use it properly - or get rid of it. I admire the design of this machine. I respect the power that it has and the damage it can do. It is a very interesting addition to my hobby.
Will I EDC it? No. It doesn't suit my needs for that. I want a gun that I can put in my pocket and forget about, even when I'm rolling around on the driveway changing my oil. I want to go to sleep on the couch with it, hidden away in my pocket, even when the family is around. A Glock isn't good for that. I'm not a cop and I live in a peaceful town. But I think the Glock is a neat-o gun and I like having it and it is there if I ever need it.

Is it safe? Yes. 100%. But its also like a high-maintenance woman. It's got its payoff - if you're willing to put the time into it.

Your assessment may be right but I didn't follow up to verify this. It was not my gun. I have no interest in seating a bullet to a different OAL just for one gun when the OAL I was using was fine in at least three other 9mm pistols.

Gaston Glock's little sewing machine represents a marvel of modern manufacturing to produce a reliable and inexpensive firearm suitable for lazy large organizations. They are no more nor less safe than any other in fact. It's inherent weakness is a severe intolerance for anyone violating rule #2 of firearms safety and demands that its handler keep everything in the environment out of the trigger guard while manipulating it. For all the people who poo-poo the notion of Browning's thumb and grip safeties the Browning design offers greater protection against the dreaded gun grab in which too many officers and agents are murdered by goons who manage to wrest handguns away from good guys. Those handguns with manual safeties have been shown time and again to prove effective at preventing criminals from successfully using a Browning handgun against an officer or agent. For all its manufacturing high points and successful marketing the Glock and its modern compatriots in the market suffer from poor ergonomics and "feel" compared to designs turned out over a century ago.

You know what's best for you. But it's better you grab that deal if it worth it.

You don't know when you'll get a good deal like that next.