Glock blows up!
- Thread starter Skip Sackett
- Start date
kshock
Member
I did some research on this very topic and the problem is not just Glock. Google "catastrophic handgun failure" and you will get quite an education. From what I've read, any striker fired polymer frame pistol is susceptible to this calamity. It has to do with the bottom portion of the case being unsupported. Some claim this unsupported area will blow out causing the catastrophic failure. It appears that bullet setback is a contributing factor in some cases. Others claim that you should not reload cases fired from one of these guns because the unsupported area of the case stretches more, thereby creating a weak spot in the case. Who knows, but it does seem that the design of these pistols make them at least slightly more susceptible to this type of failure.
A nit about this crimping business....
In an auto cartridge, the purpose of "crimping" is to undo the flare/belling when the case mouth was expanded before seating the bullet. Crimping does not make the case grip the bullet tighter and prevent setback, it makes it worse. This is the purpose for taper crimp dies for autos - they don't really crimp at all, they just remove the flare.
If you are having bullet setback issues, the most likely reason is too much flare, not insufficient crimp (or thin UMC Remington brass).
I load a lot of .45 auto, both lead and hardball, and I've learned to expand the case mouth just barely enough so I don't shave bullets, and apply barely enough crimp (with a taper crimp die) so the loaded cartridge will drop freely into the chamber, and drop back out again when tipped up. I've also quit using Remington brass in my autos, I get setback no matter what I do.
Roll crimping for revolvers can't really be compared to taper crimping for autos, it serves a different purpose.
In an auto cartridge, the purpose of "crimping" is to undo the flare/belling when the case mouth was expanded before seating the bullet. Crimping does not make the case grip the bullet tighter and prevent setback, it makes it worse. This is the purpose for taper crimp dies for autos - they don't really crimp at all, they just remove the flare.
If you are having bullet setback issues, the most likely reason is too much flare, not insufficient crimp (or thin UMC Remington brass).
I load a lot of .45 auto, both lead and hardball, and I've learned to expand the case mouth just barely enough so I don't shave bullets, and apply barely enough crimp (with a taper crimp die) so the loaded cartridge will drop freely into the chamber, and drop back out again when tipped up. I've also quit using Remington brass in my autos, I get setback no matter what I do.
Roll crimping for revolvers can't really be compared to taper crimping for autos, it serves a different purpose.
ajpelz
Member
I have serious doubt that more catastrophic failures are caused by factory made ammo than by reloaded/handloaded homemade ammunition. I am sure that the people here that claim to be cautious are, but I am even more certain that there are careless/reckless reloaders out there. If there are more KBs caused by factory ammunition, we are in for more serious trouble than we think, as it will become impossible or WAY expensive for manufacturers to continue to be insured while paying out attorney's fees and damages for the subsequent litigation.
As for carrying commercially manufactured ammo for CCW, the kaboom factor is, well, not a factor. The reason for not carrying reloaded/handloaded ammo for CCW is how the 12 average/below average people that may decide your fate perceive reloading. If you aren't familiar with the voir dire process, anyone that has reloaded ammunition would be struck from the jury. Both sides can strike a potential juror for any or no reason, so long as it isn't based on race or sex. Limitless jurors can be struck "for cause." If you were to ask a criminal/civil defense lawyer about what gun/ammunition you should carry, MOST would suggest carrying whatever LEO carry/are issued in your jurisdiction. This sets up the easiest argument legally. Is a prosecutor or attorney for the plaintiff really going to argue that the firearm and ammunition selected by the law enforcement agency isn't suitable for self-defense? That is not something that a jury is going to buy. Stating however, that "this 'gun nut' was so overzealous about weapons, and was so eager to use his weapon any chance he got, he carried ammunition that he himself created," well, I can just see that argument being made. I myself, as I am sure all of you, do not believe that argument, but WE will not be on the jury. 12 people who know little about guns, and NOTHING about reloading will be the ones who are in charge.
Sorry if this got off track, but it was mentioned in the OP, so I thought it was relevant. JMHO.
BTW, I roll my own. Not a hater.
As for carrying commercially manufactured ammo for CCW, the kaboom factor is, well, not a factor. The reason for not carrying reloaded/handloaded ammo for CCW is how the 12 average/below average people that may decide your fate perceive reloading. If you aren't familiar with the voir dire process, anyone that has reloaded ammunition would be struck from the jury. Both sides can strike a potential juror for any or no reason, so long as it isn't based on race or sex. Limitless jurors can be struck "for cause." If you were to ask a criminal/civil defense lawyer about what gun/ammunition you should carry, MOST would suggest carrying whatever LEO carry/are issued in your jurisdiction. This sets up the easiest argument legally. Is a prosecutor or attorney for the plaintiff really going to argue that the firearm and ammunition selected by the law enforcement agency isn't suitable for self-defense? That is not something that a jury is going to buy. Stating however, that "this 'gun nut' was so overzealous about weapons, and was so eager to use his weapon any chance he got, he carried ammunition that he himself created," well, I can just see that argument being made. I myself, as I am sure all of you, do not believe that argument, but WE will not be on the jury. 12 people who know little about guns, and NOTHING about reloading will be the ones who are in charge.
Sorry if this got off track, but it was mentioned in the OP, so I thought it was relevant. JMHO.
BTW, I roll my own. Not a hater.
Last edited:
chasmatic
Member
OP
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Making sure we understand the statement.
Just to keep things on an even keel, I agree with flat top about our, his and my, handloads. The issue he is speaking to is not just the fact of them going BANG too loud but to them going BANG at all.
Ammunition can fail in the "negative" sense too. That could be just as dangerous as having a "positive" failure, one that goes bang TOO big!
aj,
You are welcome to bring up the issue of handloads for CCW here, I don't want to get off track from the issue at hand though.
One thing I refuse to do is live in fear of something that has NEVER happened. The issue of handloads in a self defense shooting has NEVER been an issue in any case. The issue has NEVER gotten to a jury as a point in any case. A murder/suicide? Yes, it has. Bice, I think was the name.
As soon as it does become a REAL issue, and if handloads are illegal in your state for CCW-obey the law, and a court makes that distinction, we will all hear about it as the NRA will have conniption fits! With us right along with them!
Just remember, it is recent history where everyone that carried a loaded firearm HAD to do so with their own handloads. It just was done from the barrel end!
Just to keep things on an even keel, I agree with flat top about our, his and my, handloads. The issue he is speaking to is not just the fact of them going BANG too loud but to them going BANG at all.
Ammunition can fail in the "negative" sense too. That could be just as dangerous as having a "positive" failure, one that goes bang TOO big!
aj,
You are welcome to bring up the issue of handloads for CCW here, I don't want to get off track from the issue at hand though.
One thing I refuse to do is live in fear of something that has NEVER happened. The issue of handloads in a self defense shooting has NEVER been an issue in any case. The issue has NEVER gotten to a jury as a point in any case. A murder/suicide? Yes, it has. Bice, I think was the name.
As soon as it does become a REAL issue, and if handloads are illegal in your state for CCW-obey the law, and a court makes that distinction, we will all hear about it as the NRA will have conniption fits! With us right along with them!
Just remember, it is recent history where everyone that carried a loaded firearm HAD to do so with their own handloads. It just was done from the barrel end!
dennis40x
US Veteran
Skip thats the link you need.
OP
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Thank you sir!
ajpelz
Member
The sentence which you quoted me saying was not aimed at flat top, or anyone in particular. Just a SWAG on my part. I must have misinterpreted your OP.
I took that as you were suggesting KBs happen more with factory ammo than reloads in general. If that was not your contention, my mistake on the interpretation.
I agree with just about all of that. The only difference is, I guess, I would rather be safe than sorry. Most of us know about Fish, Bias, Alverez, etc....I would NOT want to be the name that a legal doctrine or famous case was founded upon. If I HAD to use reloads, I would, but I have hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo like Speer Gold Dot, HydraShoks, HST, Golden Sabres, on and on.... I just carry those, no reason not to.
My local LEO are carrying a Glock 22 with Federal HSTs.
I took that as you were suggesting KBs happen more with factory ammo than reloads in general. If that was not your contention, my mistake on the interpretation.
Just to keep things on an even keel, I agree with flat top about our, his and my, handloads. The issue he is speaking to is not just the fact of them going BANG too loud but to them going BANG at all.
Ammunition can fail in the "negative" sense too. That could be just as dangerous as having a "positive" failure, one that goes bang TOO big!
aj,
You are welcome to bring up the issue of handloads for CCW here, I don't want to get off track from the issue at hand though.
One thing I refuse to do is live in fear of something that has NEVER happened. The issue of handloads in a self defense shooting has NEVER been an issue in any case. The issue has NEVER gotten to a jury as a point in any case. A murder/suicide? Yes, it has. Bice, I think was the name.
As soon as it does become a REAL issue, and if handloads are illegal in your state for CCW-obey the law, and a court makes that distinction, we will all hear about it as the NRA will have conniption fits! With us right along with them!
Just remember, it is recent history where everyone that carried a loaded firearm HAD to do so with their own handloads. It just was done from the barrel end!
I agree with just about all of that. The only difference is, I guess, I would rather be safe than sorry. Most of us know about Fish, Bias, Alverez, etc....I would NOT want to be the name that a legal doctrine or famous case was founded upon. If I HAD to use reloads, I would, but I have hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo like Speer Gold Dot, HydraShoks, HST, Golden Sabres, on and on.... I just carry those, no reason not to.
My local LEO are carrying a Glock 22 with Federal HSTs.
Snapping Twig
Member
I've heard quite a bit about KB in a Glock .40, most of it centers around case head support, copper vs. lead rounds for polygonal rifling and ultimately - pressure.
I would imagine that with typical reloading safety proceedures and workups, sticking with copper jacketed rounds, there'd be little worries.
I've heard that lead can be used, but extra care must be given to avoid build-up.
I would imagine that with typical reloading safety proceedures and workups, sticking with copper jacketed rounds, there'd be little worries.
I've heard that lead can be used, but extra care must be given to avoid build-up.
OP
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
aj,
OK, got it. The point I was making in those original posts was this: There is a faction that calls for ONLY using factory ammo in CCW situations. There is also a faction that claims that ALL KB's in firearms come from handloaded ammunition. My point is this, this happened with factory ammo, just as it has happened in other calibers (9mm, 40S&W) and that should take some of the "steam" out of that argument. Knowing that it can happen should make us, those that load for Glocks and other unsupported chamber firearms, more cautious in loading for them.
I hope that clears up any difference we have on the issues!
OK, got it. The point I was making in those original posts was this: There is a faction that calls for ONLY using factory ammo in CCW situations. There is also a faction that claims that ALL KB's in firearms come from handloaded ammunition. My point is this, this happened with factory ammo, just as it has happened in other calibers (9mm, 40S&W) and that should take some of the "steam" out of that argument. Knowing that it can happen should make us, those that load for Glocks and other unsupported chamber firearms, more cautious in loading for them.
I hope that clears up any difference we have on the issues!
The only KB I have ever had was with a SIG P228. The gun was new and I was firing factory ammo. I still sometimes shoot factory ammo and i still have several SIGS, even though I have been carrying a Glock 19 lately. I haven't read anything here to make me change. A KB can happen with any firearm. Whether you choose factory ammo or handloads, don't ever think you are exempt from Murphy's law. Also both type's of ammo (and the guns) are made by human beings. Humans have a long history of making mistakes.
MWAG
Member
what does this terminology mean?
OP
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
MWAG,
I hope Dennis will grace us with his photographs once again of his various barrels showing the chambers of each.
Basically it means this: "Any firearm that has a portion of the chamber removed." In recent times, and that is all I can speak to, it shows up most of the time in semi-automatic handguns where the need to have the rounds chamber automatically, a portion of that chamber is removed for part of the feed ramp.
In a lot of firearms, the feed ramp is part of the frame, in older 1911's as an illustration.
If Dennis posts the pictures I have spoken about it will be self evident. If not, I'll try to find some of my own.
In my opinion, and that ain't worth much, some of those "run all the time" semi-auto handguns have had the chamber attacked to make them so. Adjusting the feed ramp angle and polishing them will only take you so far. The shorter the firearm, the less the slide moves, the less the barrel tips, yada, yada, yada, the more one has to turn their attention to other areas to get them to run right. I could be WAY wrong.
Jessie,
Is that Sig one of those that is considered one of those with an unsupported chamber?
I hope Dennis will grace us with his photographs once again of his various barrels showing the chambers of each.
Basically it means this: "Any firearm that has a portion of the chamber removed." In recent times, and that is all I can speak to, it shows up most of the time in semi-automatic handguns where the need to have the rounds chamber automatically, a portion of that chamber is removed for part of the feed ramp.
In a lot of firearms, the feed ramp is part of the frame, in older 1911's as an illustration.
If Dennis posts the pictures I have spoken about it will be self evident. If not, I'll try to find some of my own.
In my opinion, and that ain't worth much, some of those "run all the time" semi-auto handguns have had the chamber attacked to make them so. Adjusting the feed ramp angle and polishing them will only take you so far. The shorter the firearm, the less the slide moves, the less the barrel tips, yada, yada, yada, the more one has to turn their attention to other areas to get them to run right. I could be WAY wrong.
Jessie,
Is that Sig one of those that is considered one of those with an unsupported chamber?
DougE
Member
Here is one thread Dennis started on unsupported chambers:http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/64869-often-mentioned-unsupported-chamber-issue-g17-mp9.html
handgunner356
Member
I've witness several KaBooms, 2 involved both a S&W99 and a Walther 99 in forty. Both were firing factory ammo, 1 Federal and 1 Remington and required new frames. I believe both of these guns actually fired out of battery, but that is just my guess. Another was a 10mm Glock and he was doing the big no-no, shooting lead till he chambered it down to a 9mm, that caused him some hand burns and got him a new frame and a nasty letter. The thing is there are many factors that come in to play, but it is caused from TOO much pressure for the gun to handle. It is just bound to show up more offen the higher pressure cartridges to start with like the 40 and 10.
captainjohnsofd
Member
Besides setback, there are a couple possible causes. A plugged barrel (by a projectile) will cause a catastrophic failure. A double charged case will also do it. Less likely but still possible.
dennis40x
US Veteran
The barrel on the left is the Glock-21 OEM barrel. The barrel on the right is an after market BarSto barrel for the G21 with conventional rifling. Note the throating of the feed ramp and the protrusion of the throating into the chamber and the radius contouring on the chambers circumference.
Both barrels exhibit non-support of the cartridge case notably in the feed ramp throating area with the Glock OEM more so than the BarSto.
ajpelz
Member
Nice pics Dennis.
Truly shows how unsupported these cartridges are.
I am still thinking something was wrong with the barrel. Either an obstruction or out of spec....
What do you guys think?
Truly shows how unsupported these cartridges are.
I am still thinking something was wrong with the barrel. Either an obstruction or out of spec....
What do you guys think?
OP
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Hope you forgive me!
Dennis,
I added some information to your picture. I hope you don't mind. The picture is awesome but for instructional purposes I thought it would be just a tad better with arrows.
The text is "truncated" to fit on the picture. What it should say about the cases is this: "The case on the left has the feed ramp extend into the chamber far enough that the case wall is unsupported while the case on the left is supported all the way to the internal web."
I hope that makes sense!
Dennis,
I added some information to your picture. I hope you don't mind. The picture is awesome but for instructional purposes I thought it would be just a tad better with arrows.
The text is "truncated" to fit on the picture. What it should say about the cases is this: "The case on the left has the feed ramp extend into the chamber far enough that the case wall is unsupported while the case on the left is supported all the way to the internal web."
I hope that makes sense!
