Lead bullets for a glock
- Thread starter jhf
- Start date
- Status
faustulus
Member
Joe,
Don't own a glock, so there's no rain here.
You suggested people think for themselves, I simply suggested that the scientific method was the best approach and that data was needed to reach an informed conclusion.
So are you arguing that doing so is safe?
I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I just find it interesting your basic arguement is we should base our decision on something more than wives' tales. I am simply suggesting basing it on hard data.
Don't own a glock, so there's no rain here.
You suggested people think for themselves, I simply suggested that the scientific method was the best approach and that data was needed to reach an informed conclusion.
I prefer my cars not to come with a recall notice.
So are you arguing that doing so is safe? No but it provides a test which could produce data, unlike your sampling.
I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I just find it interesting your basic arguement is we should base our decision on something more than wives' tales. I am simply suggesting basing it on hard data.
I love it when a person contradicts the manufacturer's recommendations, contradicts scientific test results, and then justifies his claims with anecdotal evidence.
By this standard, if we can find a person or two who has often golfed during thunderstorms without incident, we can ALL assume that golfing during a thunderstorm is perfectly safe regardless of what scientists tell us about lightning. Similarly, finding a couple of smokers who haven't gotten cancer would prove to us that smoking can't cause cancer in spite of medical evidence to the contrary. That's flawed thinking.
Not having blown up a gun after ignoring the manufacturer's recommendations is not evidence of credibility--it's only evidence of good fortune.
The manufacturer states that shooting lead (unjacketed) bullets through a Glock barrel greatly increases the chance of an unpleasant incident. A forensic engineer made pressure measurements that support this statement. There have been a number of documented catastrophic failures of Glock pistols attributed to shooting lead bullets in the factory barrel.
Your good luck doesn't prove it's a myth. Proving that it is a myth would require evidence provided by scientific testing (pressure measurements for one thing). You haven't provided any such evidence, nor have you even hinted that you have access to any such evidence. The only existing publicly available evidence (pressure measurements) contradicts your claims.
BTW, Gale McMillan disagrees with your "analysis" of leading in polygonal barrels. But then what does he know about barrels?
Anyone who has any doubt about Glock's stance on shooting lead bullets can call this number and ask them directly (770)-432-1202. That's the number of the Glock factory at Smyrna, GA.
By this standard, if we can find a person or two who has often golfed during thunderstorms without incident, we can ALL assume that golfing during a thunderstorm is perfectly safe regardless of what scientists tell us about lightning. Similarly, finding a couple of smokers who haven't gotten cancer would prove to us that smoking can't cause cancer in spite of medical evidence to the contrary. That's flawed thinking.
Not having blown up a gun after ignoring the manufacturer's recommendations is not evidence of credibility--it's only evidence of good fortune.
The manufacturer states that shooting lead (unjacketed) bullets through a Glock barrel greatly increases the chance of an unpleasant incident. A forensic engineer made pressure measurements that support this statement. There have been a number of documented catastrophic failures of Glock pistols attributed to shooting lead bullets in the factory barrel.
Your good luck doesn't prove it's a myth. Proving that it is a myth would require evidence provided by scientific testing (pressure measurements for one thing). You haven't provided any such evidence, nor have you even hinted that you have access to any such evidence. The only existing publicly available evidence (pressure measurements) contradicts your claims.
BTW, Gale McMillan disagrees with your "analysis" of leading in polygonal barrels. But then what does he know about barrels?
Gale McMillan said:
Anyone who has any doubt about Glock's stance on shooting lead bullets can call this number and ask them directly (770)-432-1202. That's the number of the Glock factory at Smyrna, GA.
Let's see John, I think I said, "The tests proved to me". I just encouraged those that read these posts to think on their own. Seems like I said "Feel free to question everything I have said".
Yep, I do question what "experts" say. My question to Gale McMillan would be "If that is the case then why am I not seeing that in any of my Glocks?" If what he says is true then all of the Glocks that have had lead shot through them should have long since blown up.
I am sorry if I am stepping on some of the "Forum Kings" toes by questioning what they have to say.
On a car related note, I recall several years ago that an engineer/expert stated that acording to his calculations it is impossible for a dragster to go quicker than 7 seconds down the quarter mile. Hmmmm let's see, they are doing it in the 4 second range now. Glad those old hot rodders questioned what that engineer had to say. Seems like the same was said about the sound barrier. Most "experts" agreed that the human body could not withstand going through the sound barrier. What were you thinking Chuck Yeager? You should have listened to the experts.
On a totally unrelated note faustulus I miss my friend John Forsyth. I am assuming you, being from middle Tn, knew him.
Yep, I do question what "experts" say. My question to Gale McMillan would be "If that is the case then why am I not seeing that in any of my Glocks?" If what he says is true then all of the Glocks that have had lead shot through them should have long since blown up.
I am sorry if I am stepping on some of the "Forum Kings" toes by questioning what they have to say.
On a car related note, I recall several years ago that an engineer/expert stated that acording to his calculations it is impossible for a dragster to go quicker than 7 seconds down the quarter mile. Hmmmm let's see, they are doing it in the 4 second range now. Glad those old hot rodders questioned what that engineer had to say. Seems like the same was said about the sound barrier. Most "experts" agreed that the human body could not withstand going through the sound barrier. What were you thinking Chuck Yeager? You should have listened to the experts.
On a totally unrelated note faustulus I miss my friend John Forsyth. I am assuming you, being from middle Tn, knew him.
MNgoldenbear
Member
Point about the factory recommendations is well noted. The literature that accompanies nearly ALL firearms states that use of reloaded ammunition voids any warranty of the manufacturer. That doesn't mean reloads can't be used, it simply means that the manufacturer doesn't want to be liable if you obtain or assemble some out-of-spec round and get sprinkled with bits of their product.
True, anecdotal accounts are not entirely reliable, but they can constitute something of a body of evidence. Here's my $0.02. Shot lots of lead through G19 and G30. Cleaning is about the same as any other pistol I have (use 1911 & revolvers also) Worst leading was in my S&W 686 using too hot of a powder to make major with too soft of a bullet -- STRIPS of lead peeled out with a bronze brush after ONE stage of IPSC!
Been using Bear Creek Supply coated bullets -- looks like a waxy molycoat of some kind. They seem to do pretty well in all my pistols -- relatively little leading after extended shooting sessions. They also don't really smoke, like lead loads with typical lubes. Other associates shooting IPSC with G21s had same experience.
First blow up of a Glock with lead I'd heard of was years ago (early 90s?) involved a 40S&W, soft lead, lots of shooting, no cleaning -- article theorized that lead built up at front of chamber. Gun apparently was discharged with slide slightly out of battery -- not a true blow up, but burst the casing. Seen LOTS of brass in 40S&W with bulges on one side just above the head due to overloading and firing in a partially supported chamber. (Bad idea, obviously.)
True, anecdotal accounts are not entirely reliable, but they can constitute something of a body of evidence. Here's my $0.02. Shot lots of lead through G19 and G30. Cleaning is about the same as any other pistol I have (use 1911 & revolvers also) Worst leading was in my S&W 686 using too hot of a powder to make major with too soft of a bullet -- STRIPS of lead peeled out with a bronze brush after ONE stage of IPSC!
Been using Bear Creek Supply coated bullets -- looks like a waxy molycoat of some kind. They seem to do pretty well in all my pistols -- relatively little leading after extended shooting sessions. They also don't really smoke, like lead loads with typical lubes. Other associates shooting IPSC with G21s had same experience.First blow up of a Glock with lead I'd heard of was years ago (early 90s?) involved a 40S&W, soft lead, lots of shooting, no cleaning -- article theorized that lead built up at front of chamber. Gun apparently was discharged with slide slightly out of battery -- not a true blow up, but burst the casing. Seen LOTS of brass in 40S&W with bulges on one side just above the head due to overloading and firing in a partially supported chamber. (Bad idea, obviously.)
WARNING! This post is written with the express intent to inform and entertain. Due to the differences in human nature, behavior and culture, it is possible that information contained within this post may annoy the reader although that is certainly not the intent of the author. Reading past this point constitutes an agreement by the reader to waive his legal right not to be annoyed by anonymous communication on the internet.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
Here's what it boils down to, IMO. I can't claim that I always follow manufacturer's instructions. BUT, I try to draw the line at encouraging others to ignore what the manufacturer recommends, and certainly would never criticize someone for obeying their manual.
You and I don't have access to the same testing equipment and expertise that a typical gun manufacturer has and therefore it's questionable at best for us to represent our opinions as having the same weight as the test results of the true experts (those who design, manufacture and test guns for a living). A typical factory has tested hundreds, if not thousands of firearms, fired more rounds in a day than you and I do in a really busy year or two, owns and uses test equipment that you and I couldn't afford with a lifetime of earnings, and has many engineers and designers on their staff, most with far more training and experience than you or I will ever have.
I realize that it's common for manufacturers to play the CYA game by being overly conservative in their recommendations, but if you think about it, they're trying to CYA by preventing incidents that could cause them problems. A little thought will make it clear that the "incidents" that they want to prevent are almost certainly incidents that you and I want to prevent as well...
The things posted on this forum stay here for a long time and become, to some extent, a permanent record. If you do an internet search on various gun related topics, it's extremely likely that within a page or two, you'll find a THR post referenced. It's not so much a matter of someone's toes getting stepped on, it's a matter of how many people will read this in the years that it stays on the web. I feel that this topic is important enough that both views needed to be represented on the thread so that folks who pull it up for information don't get just one side of the story.
Think of it this way. There was a huge furor over the frame rail separation issue with the Glocks awhile back. BUT, only one gun out of every few hundred was likely to have the problem. Yet people were outraged, and Glock ended up replacing ALL the guns that MIGHT be affected, whether damaged or not. Here is a similar issue. Maybe only one person out of some relatively large number of people using lead bullets will cause a Glock blow up, but why should we be any less worried about this issue? Why should a small chance of a gun failure due to a non-recommended reloading practice be any less of an issue than a small chance of a gun failure due to a manufacturing problem?
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
If you're talking about me, I'm not a king of anything. If you're talking about Gale McMillan, I wouldn't call him a forum king, I would call him a person who has a LOT of experience designing, making and selling barrels. But it's not about you contradicting or questioning someone on this forum, it's about contradicting what the manufacturer says and what the experts recommend.
Here's what it boils down to, IMO. I can't claim that I always follow manufacturer's instructions. BUT, I try to draw the line at encouraging others to ignore what the manufacturer recommends, and certainly would never criticize someone for obeying their manual.
You and I don't have access to the same testing equipment and expertise that a typical gun manufacturer has and therefore it's questionable at best for us to represent our opinions as having the same weight as the test results of the true experts (those who design, manufacture and test guns for a living). A typical factory has tested hundreds, if not thousands of firearms, fired more rounds in a day than you and I do in a really busy year or two, owns and uses test equipment that you and I couldn't afford with a lifetime of earnings, and has many engineers and designers on their staff, most with far more training and experience than you or I will ever have.
I realize that it's common for manufacturers to play the CYA game by being overly conservative in their recommendations, but if you think about it, they're trying to CYA by preventing incidents that could cause them problems. A little thought will make it clear that the "incidents" that they want to prevent are almost certainly incidents that you and I want to prevent as well...
The things posted on this forum stay here for a long time and become, to some extent, a permanent record. If you do an internet search on various gun related topics, it's extremely likely that within a page or two, you'll find a THR post referenced. It's not so much a matter of someone's toes getting stepped on, it's a matter of how many people will read this in the years that it stays on the web. I feel that this topic is important enough that both views needed to be represented on the thread so that folks who pull it up for information don't get just one side of the story.
IMO, even this comment is an overstatement. You may be personally satisfied, but that doesn't mean that anything has been proved to anyone. A few thousand rounds of lead bullets through a Glock barrel only proves that either you have been very careful, very lucky, or both.
Think of it this way. There was a huge furor over the frame rail separation issue with the Glocks awhile back. BUT, only one gun out of every few hundred was likely to have the problem. Yet people were outraged, and Glock ended up replacing ALL the guns that MIGHT be affected, whether damaged or not. Here is a similar issue. Maybe only one person out of some relatively large number of people using lead bullets will cause a Glock blow up, but why should we be any less worried about this issue? Why should a small chance of a gun failure due to a non-recommended reloading practice be any less of an issue than a small chance of a gun failure due to a manufacturing problem?
Last edited:
faustulus
Member
Man do I. I used to shoot with him in Manchester. I remember the last time I saw him, I was totatly shocked when I heard about his death. A good man.
I guess it is about time to stop beating this horse. I, along with many others, will continue to shoot lead bullets in Glocks. I do not feel I am lucky. I do not believe in luck. What I have proven is the blanket statement "You can't shoot lead bullets in Glocks" is incorrect. There may be instances of gun failure due to, too soft lead, double charge, bullet setback and others. These failures are not unique to Glocks. I have seen all of them blown up over the years. I have seen a 1911 blown up due to lead build up in the barrel. As stated before I get much more leading in my Kimbers than I do in my Glock 21. I just passed the 1,000 round mark yesterday at an IDPA match shooting 200 gr SWC Valiant lead bullets in my G21. I pushed a patch through the barrel last night. No evidence of leading what so ever.
When I see something that does not make sense to me I ask why. I question authority. As I said before my question to Gail McMillan, noted barrel maker, would still be "If that is the case why am I NOT seeing that in any of my Glocks?".
When I see something that does not make sense to me I ask why. I question authority. As I said before my question to Gail McMillan, noted barrel maker, would still be "If that is the case why am I NOT seeing that in any of my Glocks?".
daniel (australia)
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 338
JohnKSa said:
FWIW the manual which came with my Glock 17A says:
"No liability whatsoever can be accepted if ammunition in bad condition or other than ammunition manufactured according to CIP and SAAMI standards as well as reloaded ammunition is used."
This is not so much a warning as a disclaimer, but it is essentially the same as that of any other manufacturer. None will accept liability for the use of reloaded ammunition. Many people, including myself, may make an informed decision to use reloaded ammunition nonetheless.
There is no reference to using or not using lead bullets in the manual which came with my pistol. FWIW I use coated lead projectiles from here exclusively in my Glock, and I've used some thousands. They shoot well and cost about 25% or less of the price of jacketed bullets, and I have no problems with leading. At my IPSC club pretty much everyone seems to favour these projectiles, including the fair number with Glocks, and some guns (such as the club's Glock training pistols) would have fired many, many thousands.
Uncoated and/or soft lead bullets might be another thing entirely of course, but these hard, coated numbers seem to work fine.
Versifier
Member
I shot my reloads of both cast and jacketed varieties in my G23. I always kept the pressures low and used water-dropped lino for the cast ones. Never had a problem in several thousand rounds. I never thought much about it until someone on another forum suggested I Googol "Kaboom". I read about how the factory barrels do not adequately support the brass and it is bulged and weakened by firing. Hmmm. I then took some samples of new factory fodder and some fired brass and began to do some measuring. To my horror I found all the fired rounds were noticably bulged above the web. I checked different makes of brass. Same problem. On many I could actually see the distortion, once I knew to look for it. Don't take my word for it. Measure it for yourself. Glocks are designed with oversized chambers to keep feeding and functioning in battle conditions. The big chambers allow the brass to expand enough that it is stressed even without the unsupported section of case. This is not an issue for a military weapon that is never fed reloaded ammo, but it is cause for concern for the rest of us. Try chambering a Glock-fired .40 S&W case in a different make pistol barrel with a normal chamber. I did it with a Ruger. It was an eye opener. It went in not even half way. To me it's not rocket science. I will be getting an aftermarket barrel for mine. You can do what you like, this is America, but don't be offended if I move to the other end of the firing line.
georgeduz
Member
lead build up has always been a problem,not just glocks,a hard cast is always good for me and its always wize to get the lead out.i havnt had any problems with any of them,but i see how it could be a problem if you dont know what to look for.
WARNING! This post is written with the express intent to inform and entertain. Due to the differences in human nature, behavior and culture, it is possible that information contained within this post may annoy the reader although that is certainly not the intent of the author. Reading past this point constitutes an agreement by the reader to waive his legal right not to be annoyed by anonymous communication on the internet.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
daniel,
It is my understanding that the newer Glock manuals do include a comment about not using lead bullets, but I have been unable to verify this.
However, regardless of what is in the manual, Glock's official position can be determined quite easily by contacting the factory--I posted the phone number earlier on this thread. There have also been publications quoting Glock representatives making the position known. Their official position has always been consistent--do not use lead bullets in the factory barrels.
Mr. McMillan and various other experts on the topic have given their expert opinions on the topic (WHY it's a bad idea), and pressure testing results done by a forensic engineer are summarized on the web and indicate alarming pressure increases "after only a few rounds fired" even when using 24BHN lead bullets. The engineer began the testing when one of his Glocks failed catastrophically after having about 23,000 rounds (mostly lead reloads) through it.
There have been various solutions or workarounds proposed for not using jacketed bullets. The forensic engineer included one or two in his treatise that summarized the pressure testing results.
Plated bullets have been a commonly proposed alternative. However, I would caution people using plated bullets to be very cautious about their use, especially when first trying a new brand. The absolute worst case of leading I have EVER encountered was a result of shooting plated bullets in a Beretta pistol. Evidentally the plating was not very thick and the underlying lead was dead soft. Took me hours to get the lead out.
Mr. McMillan indicates in the link I provided earlier that the harder the bullets, the less the leading. Quantifying these relative terms in a meaningful way is difficult, and I suspect that there are other variables which are significant. The forensic engineer lists a few variables that he believes are contributors.
As the forensic engineer found, it may take a significant amount of shooting lead before your luck runs out--over 20,000 rounds in his case. Along the same lines, I'll leave you with the sentence that Mr. McMillan used as a closing statement in his brief comments on using lead bullets in polygonal rifling. It's not encouraging by any means.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
Nobody ever said that shooting a single lead bullet or even 1000 lead bullets would automatically result in catastrophic failure. In MarkCo's case, it took well over 20K rounds before his gun exploded.Joe D said:
daniel,
It is my understanding that the newer Glock manuals do include a comment about not using lead bullets, but I have been unable to verify this.
However, regardless of what is in the manual, Glock's official position can be determined quite easily by contacting the factory--I posted the phone number earlier on this thread. There have also been publications quoting Glock representatives making the position known. Their official position has always been consistent--do not use lead bullets in the factory barrels.
Mr. McMillan and various other experts on the topic have given their expert opinions on the topic (WHY it's a bad idea), and pressure testing results done by a forensic engineer are summarized on the web and indicate alarming pressure increases "after only a few rounds fired" even when using 24BHN lead bullets. The engineer began the testing when one of his Glocks failed catastrophically after having about 23,000 rounds (mostly lead reloads) through it.
There have been various solutions or workarounds proposed for not using jacketed bullets. The forensic engineer included one or two in his treatise that summarized the pressure testing results.
Plated bullets have been a commonly proposed alternative. However, I would caution people using plated bullets to be very cautious about their use, especially when first trying a new brand. The absolute worst case of leading I have EVER encountered was a result of shooting plated bullets in a Beretta pistol. Evidentally the plating was not very thick and the underlying lead was dead soft. Took me hours to get the lead out.
Mr. McMillan indicates in the link I provided earlier that the harder the bullets, the less the leading. Quantifying these relative terms in a meaningful way is difficult, and I suspect that there are other variables which are significant. The forensic engineer lists a few variables that he believes are contributors.
As the forensic engineer found, it may take a significant amount of shooting lead before your luck runs out--over 20,000 rounds in his case. Along the same lines, I'll leave you with the sentence that Mr. McMillan used as a closing statement in his brief comments on using lead bullets in polygonal rifling. It's not encouraging by any means.
Gale McMillan said:
Last edited:
The newer Glock manuals say nothing about lead bullets. I have a G21 that I bought a month ago. The "forensic engineer" you keep referring to has posted no pressure info, nor has he supplied the type and model of his testing equipment. I should know, I have asked for that information on more than one occasion.
I have put far more than 20,000 lead bullets through Glocks over the years.
I feel really ashamed that I can't seem to get my Glock barrels to lead. Should I send them back to Glock?
BTW John, you seem to be in the minority on this lead bullet issue. Is it possible you could be wrong? Could you admit if you were? Read the posts. People shoot lead bullets through Glocks. That is a fact.
I am not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine. Guess it is time to find something else you and I can disagree on.
I have put far more than 20,000 lead bullets through Glocks over the years.
I feel really ashamed that I can't seem to get my Glock barrels to lead. Should I send them back to Glock?
BTW John, you seem to be in the minority on this lead bullet issue. Is it possible you could be wrong? Could you admit if you were? Read the posts. People shoot lead bullets through Glocks. That is a fact.
I am not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine. Guess it is time to find something else you and I can disagree on.
WARNING! This post is written with the express intent to inform and entertain. Due to the differences in human nature, behavior and culture, it is possible that information contained within this post may annoy the reader although that is certainly not the intent of the author. Reading past this point constitutes an agreement by the reader to waive his legal right not to be annoyed by anonymous communication on the internet.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
As far as shooting lead bullets through Glocks, I have no doubt that people do it. And I have no doubt that they get away with it in most cases. After all, if MarkCo got away with it for over 20,000 rounds, one could logically assume that the probability of a lead bullet blowing up a Glock is fairly small. Likewise, the odds of getting struck by lightning are pretty small--but that doesn't mean I'm going to start advising people to play golf in thunderstorms.
As far as changing my mind, that will be easy. Either post pressure measurements proving your allegations, or get Glock to change their recommendations.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
I'm only in the minority on this thread--the majority of people believe the factory, as they should. How many people believe a thing is pretty much irrelevant anyway. A thing is not right or wrong based on what percentage of the population believes it.Joe D said:
Since I'm only quoting others, and primarily basing what I say on what the factory recommends, you'll have to get Glock to change their story or post credible pressure testing results to prove that I'm wrong--to get me to admit I'm wrong.Joe D said:
As far as shooting lead bullets through Glocks, I have no doubt that people do it. And I have no doubt that they get away with it in most cases. After all, if MarkCo got away with it for over 20,000 rounds, one could logically assume that the probability of a lead bullet blowing up a Glock is fairly small. Likewise, the odds of getting struck by lightning are pretty small--but that doesn't mean I'm going to start advising people to play golf in thunderstorms.
I never had any intentions of changing your mind. I stated my intention quite clearly earlier. It was to ensure that the other side of the story was told to give the people who read the thread a better chance at making an informed decision.Joe D said:
As far as changing my mind, that will be easy. Either post pressure measurements proving your allegations, or get Glock to change their recommendations.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Turnout at the IDPA shoot today was light, we were in conflict with another area club's schedule. There were only four Glocks in action. Two of them did NOT blow up. Joe's shot all day with lead bullets, and one shot with factory loads did just fine.
The other two kaBoomed on jacketed bullet handloads.
One guy was using too fast a powder for a G22/.40 in search of economy and cleanliness and it blew the casehead completely to smithereens. His extractor departed for parts unknown but the gun appears otherwise undamaged.
The other chap was shooting a G21/.45 with very vanilla loads, blew out the sidewall over the feed ramp, gutted the magazine, blew out the magazine catch, and cut the trigger in half. Maybe more, he will have to gauge the butt of the gun to see if the receiver was hurt. Too much powder? Likely, it sure sounded louder than usual.
Did they do things wrong loading for Glocks (or likely anything else)?
Yes.
Did it involve lead bullets?
No.
Lead bullets can be a convenient scapegoat for operator error, looks to me like.
The other two kaBoomed on jacketed bullet handloads.
One guy was using too fast a powder for a G22/.40 in search of economy and cleanliness and it blew the casehead completely to smithereens. His extractor departed for parts unknown but the gun appears otherwise undamaged.
The other chap was shooting a G21/.45 with very vanilla loads, blew out the sidewall over the feed ramp, gutted the magazine, blew out the magazine catch, and cut the trigger in half. Maybe more, he will have to gauge the butt of the gun to see if the receiver was hurt. Too much powder? Likely, it sure sounded louder than usual.
Did they do things wrong loading for Glocks (or likely anything else)?
Yes.
Did it involve lead bullets?
No.
Lead bullets can be a convenient scapegoat for operator error, looks to me like.
WARNING! This post is written with the express intent to inform and entertain. Due to the differences in human nature, behavior and culture, it is possible that information contained within this post may annoy the reader although that is certainly not the intent of the author. Reading past this point constitutes an agreement by the reader to waive his legal right not to be annoyed by anonymous communication on the internet.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
Obviously not in this case...
But from what you're saying, it sounds like pushing the limits in search of economy, or not taking the proper care when reloading can be harmful to a firearm...right?
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
Obviously not in this case...
But from what you're saying, it sounds like pushing the limits in search of economy, or not taking the proper care when reloading can be harmful to a firearm...right?
Last edited:
The owner of the .40 has been known to have reloading issues in the past. Interesting thing was the .40 case looked to be the more violent kaboom. The .45 just had a hole blown in the case at the unsupported area. The G21 had much more gun damage than the G22 did. I was within 10 feet of both shooters with the guns blew. It was pretty clear to me both had either a double charge or a gross over charge.
What are the odds of having two guns blow at a match on the same stage?
What are the odds of having two guns blow at a match on the same stage?
WARNING! This post is written with the express intent to inform and entertain. Due to the differences in human nature, behavior and culture, it is possible that information contained within this post may annoy the reader although that is certainly not the intent of the author. Reading past this point constitutes an agreement by the reader to waive his legal right not to be annoyed by anonymous communication on the internet.
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
About the same as getting struck by lightning...
If you do not wish to waive this right, please stop reading at this point and use the ignore feature on this forum to avoid future posts by this author. Thank you.
About the same as getting struck by lightning...
Last edited:
countertop
Member
As I recall, they were pure lead. They had been sitting around for awhile when I got them. I think my dad might have some left and I can check next time I am up if you want.
RickSavage
Member
I have to agree with Joe here,
I have a Glock 21 and a colt 1911 and cast my own bullets 230 grn rn . I have had no lead build up in my glock or a kaboom I actually have more leading in the colt. It's all about the lube I think. Use a top Quality lube it's worth it. I would more believe that the kabooms are from the load and or loader than the lead. I think that we as reloaders get so wound up in how fast or how many bullets that can be loaded in a hour that accidents happen.It's easy to forget how dangerous this sport can really be. I've been loading for over 25 years and do it because i enjoy it not to see how fast i can load 100 rnds. Rick
I have a Glock 21 and a colt 1911 and cast my own bullets 230 grn rn . I have had no lead build up in my glock or a kaboom I actually have more leading in the colt. It's all about the lube I think. Use a top Quality lube it's worth it. I would more believe that the kabooms are from the load and or loader than the lead. I think that we as reloaders get so wound up in how fast or how many bullets that can be loaded in a hour that accidents happen.It's easy to forget how dangerous this sport can really be. I've been loading for over 25 years and do it because i enjoy it not to see how fast i can load 100 rnds. Rick
JoeD said:
Nor will you ever get any real hard info from him.
I still say (this thread is really old by the way) load lead in Glocks till you can load no more.
Ok, I've actually contacted Glock Inc about the lead thru glocks issue. I did this face to face with the glock regional rep for my area at a sheriff's dept meeting. My dept has been shooting LEAD RELOADS almost exclusively thru their guns since they bought them about 12 years ago. Glock not only knows about this, but has zero problems with it. They actually recommended the company the dept gets their lead bullets from.
I also have the recommendation of several bullet manufacturers with many 10's of thousands of rounds shot thru glocks.
The problem with leading is that some people are stupid in their reloading practices. At the first IPSC match I went to, a guy leaded up his kimber barrel enough to get a squib. Does this mean that 1911 barrels are unsafe to shoot lead thru?
The failure analyst that blew a glock with lead bullets was using different loads, powders and charges. It sounds like he was trying to develop a load when he blew it apart. He blamed leading in the bore creating unsafe pressure levels. The guy was shooting thru a chronograph, had over 120 loads thru it, apparantly he didn't bother to check the bore for leading, which, btw, is one of the things you're supposed to do when developing a load with lead bullets.
Any engineer that can't develop a load without blowing a gun apart is a twit. A twit with an engineering degree is still a twit. (I should know, I have an engineering degree and completely satisfy the other requirement).
PS, roughly 5k rounds of lead thru my glock 21 with no problems or leading. In fact, I get more leading in my 1911's than I do my glocks.
I also have the recommendation of several bullet manufacturers with many 10's of thousands of rounds shot thru glocks.
The problem with leading is that some people are stupid in their reloading practices. At the first IPSC match I went to, a guy leaded up his kimber barrel enough to get a squib. Does this mean that 1911 barrels are unsafe to shoot lead thru?
The failure analyst that blew a glock with lead bullets was using different loads, powders and charges. It sounds like he was trying to develop a load when he blew it apart. He blamed leading in the bore creating unsafe pressure levels. The guy was shooting thru a chronograph, had over 120 loads thru it, apparantly he didn't bother to check the bore for leading, which, btw, is one of the things you're supposed to do when developing a load with lead bullets.
Any engineer that can't develop a load without blowing a gun apart is a twit. A twit with an engineering degree is still a twit. (I should know, I have an engineering degree and completely satisfy the other requirement).
PS, roughly 5k rounds of lead thru my glock 21 with no problems or leading. In fact, I get more leading in my 1911's than I do my glocks.
Interesting reading.
I have also contacted Glock Direct. Not a rep. but glock direct. They were pretty direct about not shooting lead.
The best I could get them to own up to was the concern if they said it was ok to shoot lead that some in-experienced reloader would get some
PURE plumbers lead, cast some bullets and end up kabooooming his glock.
From my personel experience of casting ALLOYS, mixing pure Antimony and tin with wheel weight lead to create a bullet harder than linotype lead, then making sure you have a good coating of liquid Alox on them will not cause a leading issue.
If you do not have a good coating of bullet lube on them, even alloy mixed it will tend to want to lead up. Personally I have no issues loading my own alloy bullets coated with liquid alox, 24% antimony, 6% tin, 70% wheel weight lead which has a small amount of antimony in it. My bullets test about 13-14 on the saeco harness testor.
Would I shoot pure soft plumbers lead? Uhhhhhhhhh NO. So are you folks talking shooting lead bullets or shooting alloy bullets? There is one MAJOR difference between them. It is called hardness.
I own 5 glocks myself. Do what you wish with this information. Use it or ignore it. It is just an observation on my part.
5.56
I have also contacted Glock Direct. Not a rep. but glock direct. They were pretty direct about not shooting lead.
The best I could get them to own up to was the concern if they said it was ok to shoot lead that some in-experienced reloader would get some
PURE plumbers lead, cast some bullets and end up kabooooming his glock.
From my personel experience of casting ALLOYS, mixing pure Antimony and tin with wheel weight lead to create a bullet harder than linotype lead, then making sure you have a good coating of liquid Alox on them will not cause a leading issue.
If you do not have a good coating of bullet lube on them, even alloy mixed it will tend to want to lead up. Personally I have no issues loading my own alloy bullets coated with liquid alox, 24% antimony, 6% tin, 70% wheel weight lead which has a small amount of antimony in it. My bullets test about 13-14 on the saeco harness testor.
Would I shoot pure soft plumbers lead? Uhhhhhhhhh NO. So are you folks talking shooting lead bullets or shooting alloy bullets? There is one MAJOR difference between them. It is called hardness.
I own 5 glocks myself. Do what you wish with this information. Use it or ignore it. It is just an observation on my part.
5.56
If we're going to get specific, every "lead" bullet I've ever shot was some form of lead alloy, usually mixed with antimony and the ones I've done myself were water quenched to get them harder. Every commercial cast bullet is some form of alloy. I've had good luck (read "no leading") with Meister, Master Cast, and Kead. We're pretty much using "lead" and "cast alloy" interchangably.
I'm not sure if the company the dept uses cast's their own bullets or not, but we've had no leading, even during RO qualification courses (1000+ rounds, typically with no time to clean the guns).
5 glocks? Damn, I only have 4.... time for some more shopping I guess
I'm not sure if the company the dept uses cast's their own bullets or not, but we've had no leading, even during RO qualification courses (1000+ rounds, typically with no time to clean the guns).
5 glocks? Damn, I only have 4.... time for some more shopping I guess
- Status
