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.
Are Glocks safe?
- Thread starter max503
- Start date
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!
I don’t like Glocks for the same reason I don’t like H&K, they’re both awkwardly bulky feeling and ugly. 
IllinoisFineGuns
Member
External Handgun Safeties
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 12
Probably the main problem that Glocks have is people who know very little about them or how they work spouting their opinions as “information”.
Same thing goes about shooting cast boolits...
Fastbolt
Member
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.)
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.)
crstrode
Member
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.
Not until they are manipulated does the level of safety decline.
Some groups of manipulators make them less safe than others.
.455_Hunter
Member
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.
Last edited:
Fastbolt
Member
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.
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.
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.
MorrisGray
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 3
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)
MorrisGray
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 3
** 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
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
Puller
Member
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.
rogerwnuss
Member
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
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
Last edited:
Darkenfast
Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
