new 40 S & W brass design or...?

[ppro]

In reviewing kaboom postings accross the net (plus talking with Sierra Bullet company reps and Brian) it becomes clear that one gun in particular seems to be responsible for a majority of blowups in 40 S & W......Glock

But the problem doesn't exactly begin or end there, since the cartridge is more sensitive to variables in the reloading process and it does operate at substantially higher pressure than the 9mm and 45.  Pressure curve information shows substantial sensitivity of the 40 to such things as varied seating depth which when bullets are seated progressively deeper, the pressure curve changes vary rapidly compared to other cartridges such as 9mm and 45.

All this caused me to wonder and talk with Starline and Sierra and Brian, about the possibility of developing a better piece of 40 brass to help with the problem.

This of course raises a fundamental question.......Is it appropiate to ask a brass manufacturer to modify brass to a heavier configuration, to compensate for a gun manufacturer that ignores SAAMI chamber specs., which is the foundation for the design of the brass in the first place.

Also of considerable import is the fact that taken as a issue......should brass NOT be redesigned if the safety of the shooter is of major importance....That is to say, if a firearms manufacturer continues to produce chamber spec guns that can be more of a hazard compared to the rest of the industry who generally shoot for SAAMI spec chambers, then is unreasonable to ask brass manufacturers to improve brass to compensate to the degree possible thereby reducing the hazard to shooters?

In fact, Starline brass has done just that.....and their 40 S&W brass is substantially heavier in the head area of the brass than commonly seen.  I did contact Starline originally, because they also offer a +P brass for the 9mm and I wondered if it would be possible....or appropiate, to offer something similar for the 40.

Starline said that they have in fact made their 40 brass heavier in the head for a number of reasons already discussed.

What Starline has done, does not solve the problem but goes along way in consideration of the overall problem.  Starline has not called their 40 brass +P or anything similar, rather it is more a matter of letting shooters know that they will have better results with their brass if it is Starline as compared with other brass available.

ON THE OTHER HAND.......should we as shooters be complaining to Glock about the problem?  I would hazard to guess, that Glocks intention is and was to produce the most reliably feeding 40 on the planet.  The generous chamber spec design has more to do with reliability than anything.....when feed new unfired ammo from good sources.

Yet there is still the issue of the blowups.......

So......whats the answer....???

Paul

[1badmagnum]

I would boycott glock.the brass works in other firearms perfectly,why should starline spend more money making heavier brass because one manufacturer is too cheap to engineer their pistols correctly?starline is one of the few makers of 50 ae brass,and I have had great results with all 500 rounds I have hand loaded so far.

[L9X25]

There is yet another problem... if brass manufacturers significantly change the thickness of their brass in the web area (where they blow out), since they cannot change the external dimensions of the brass, they would have to change the internal volume of the case and correspondingly change the reloading data for their new cartridge. That could be a serious problem if their brass caused a gun failure and/or personal injury (lawsuit).

I believe that 10mm brass has a heavier web than .40 cal.  I own a 10mm Glock and shot full power bowling pin reloads from it without bulging cases and it has a stock barrel.  

I believe that improper reloading accounts for the majority of .40 cal blow-ups.  Many people are trying to make major with heavy bullets and fast powders and creating higher peak pressues than the case is designed for.  Perhaps an aftermarket fully supported chamber barrel for the Glock might be an easier solution?

Leo

[TheOtherErik]

Its coincidence  this topic just started. Just the other day at my local indoor range someone blew up thier glock.  Personally I think that it was his ammo that he had loaded. looked like it was about 1.100, couldent tell for sure but it was deffinatly short.  Along with the unsupported chamber  ment disaster for this guy. its funny though, he shot about 30 rounds before the misshap.   The only other glock explosions I personally know of are squib explsoions.  One the guy was shooting lead and the lead built up in the barrel and stoped the bullet form exiting the barrel and he fired a second shot. BOOM  The other was from poor reloading. Agan, antother squib and a follwing shot.  Bolth instances the guns were complely distroyed. I really have never heard of a problem with glocks and factory ammo but thats not to say that there isnt. Most of problems i am aware of are with reloads, which glock doenst recommend.   I you choose to go against thier guidlines it is at your own risk.  

I do own a glock 35 and shoot IPSC production with my own reloads. The loads are really low pressure for minor. Even with a 130PF the cases still bulged. I argree that the chamber does need to be tightend up and supported more.  

[Carlos]

Can't blame Glock; they build for police and military applications and they specifically discourage ever using reloaded ammo in their guns - its right in the owners manual that comes w/ every new and re-furbished gun they sell. I doubt  they could make the relaibility claims they do if they tightened up all their .40 chambers - you just do not see 1911 makers advertise their guns by showing color photos of the gun being dipped in mud and frozen in blocks of ice - then fired without cleaning. Face it, the glock is designed first as a military, police and self defense gun that works 100% - not a match gun w/ a tight match chamber - we just use it as a match gun (yeah, yeah, I know about the 34 and 35 and the 17L). Point is, boycot Glock and they might just stick to police and export sales (and likely still make a profit).

Agree w.  L9x25 that reloaders are the problem.  I reload .45, 9x23 and 9mm. I never count the number of firings on each casing because I am lazy like most high volume pistol cal. reloaders.  What result? I have split dozens and dozens of cases - I never once noticed anything until I later found the split case. I have NEVER had a case head seperation.

When .40s KB, they suffer case head seperation.  The brass wears in a different way than lower pressure casings - that is just a fact.  Sure, re-working the glock bulge w/ a case-pro or a Lee U die accelerates the wear on a .40 case and leads to a seperation sooner, but the fact remains that in you reload a .40 casing too many times w/ fast, soft, IPSC suitable powder, it is going to seperate on you. You HAVE to count loadings and live w/ the fact that you will have to throw out brass after a time - which means that most guys will likely leave it on the ground someplace for some poor sap to pick up and reload for his gun.

Look, I reload for rifle too and I do not like to "retire" brass; but I'd rather do that than have 55,000 PSI cut loose a few inches from my face. I count reloadings and expect my rifle brass to wear out over time.

Now, as for brass improvements, you likely found on the net that the early "Federal" marked brass caused most of the trouble whereas the latest stuff w/ "FC" had less of a problem. Between major maker's improvements made thus far, and Starline's answer, there seems to be a solution already. True, case capacity is less w/ +P style brass in other calibers, but would it pose a danger in the .40? Put another way, would the thicker Starline brass cause a pressure problem or seperation w/ your current load?

[2alpha]

Glock never made a bad gun, if you don't believe it just ask them!! It's always the customers fault!!

The combination of usupported chambers, used cases, and higher pressure loads is just asking for it in a Glock.

I think the use of rifle primers also is a factor because they just cover up pressure problems.

GFL cases followed by the early Federals are the worst for Kabooms.  I would never use either of those.

[1badmagnum]

I dont have to worry about exploding cases,I'm shooting a de.sell the toy guns to the cops

[Duane Thomas]

"But the problem doesn't exactly begin or end there, since the cartridge is more sensitive to variables in the reloading process and it does operate at substantially higher pressure than the 9mm and 45."

Untrue. SAAMI pressure ceiling for standard pressure 9mm Parabellum is 35,000 psi. The spec for .40 S&W when it was first introduced was 35,000 psi, the same at 9mmP, but KBs in Glocks prompted SAAMI several years ago to lower the pressure ceiling in .40 S&W to 32,000 psi.

"I believe that improper reloading accounts for the majority of .40 cal blow-ups.  Many people are trying to make major with heavy bullets and fast powders and creating higher peak pressues than the case is designed for.  Perhaps an aftermarket fully supported chamber barrel for the Glock might be an easier solution?"

I believe the problem is a combination of the Glock's polygonally rifled barrel which leads to heavy barrel fouling with lead bullets, and the .40 cal's suituability for IPSC shooting. The IPSC shooter, not knowing of the potential danger in this gun/cartridge combination, runs a lot of soft lead through his .40 Glock. The barrel leads immensely, pressures inside the cartridge when fired rise, and eventually one lets go in the unsupported area over the feed ramp which has been severely cut back by Glock to make a .40 feed in a 9mm platform.

The reason the chambers on .40 Glocks are so severely trimmed back is that, when the .40 S&W cartridge first came out, Glock rushed their guns into production because they wanted to "catch the wave" of the new cartridge's guaranteed popularity. This meant they had to build on their pre-existing platforms - which at the time meant Glock 17 and 19. (Smith & Wesson which developed the .40 S&W as a joint venture with Winchester had the first .40s on the market, but Glock was second, and had their guns out within months of Smith.) The only way they could make those guns, originally designed as 9mms, work with a much fatter cartridge was to cut back the feed ramp and chamber until the cartridge would feed.

A "fully supported" barrel for a Glock is not an option. We can make the chamber tighter, but we can't move the chamber mouth back significantly, restoring it to a safe condition, and still have a gun that feeds well.

"I really have never heard of a problem with glocks and factory ammo but thats not to say that there isnt."

A few years ago PMC ran off a particular lot of .40 S&W that was KBing Glocks with factory ammo.

[ppro]

Duane

Thanks for the correction....re operating pressures.

A couple of questions that you might be able to reflect  on..

Do you know why Glock has never updated the Glock platform (given the history noted above)....?

Outwardly it seems rather odd that Glock would NOT subsequently update the design in a effort create a better safer weapon.  Sounds simple no doubt, but manufacturers update their designs regularly and Glock has created a number of different models.....I don't know, but if it were ME, I would much rather NOT risk injury to shooters regardless and seek to improve the weapon system to the point where such incidents (caused by handloading or otherwise) would at least be equal to and not  greater than the number experienced by any other common good manufacturer of the 40......

When I spoke to a particular bullet company representative, a pretty horrendous story about PD department blowups was related and it amazed me as to the shear numbers involved in one incident alone.  This was a case of a department still using lead practice/qualification ammo and a resulting 12 plus blowups in a VERY short period, until they stopped using the lead ammunition.  I don't know how this story relates to their current recommendation of not using reloaded or lead bullet ammunition.....possibly such occurrences are not recent and I didn't ask the representative.  It does however make me wonder why the symptom (use of lead or reloads) rather than the problem (apparent design deficiencies?) has not been addressed.

I don't know the answer to this either but am wondering......whereas a possible solution of obtaining good aftermarket barrels was mentioned......(given the Glock design history you provided).....does that mean that barrels such as those provided by Bar-Sto Precision Machine (for example) would in and of themselves not solve the problem of the unsupported chamber and also, would not provide reliable feeding when compared with the Glock factory barrel?

Lastly....is there some specific great advantage to the land groove design used by Glock when compared to more conventional rifling?  I couldn't help but wonder since their rifling design does seem to contribute to lead related pressure problems.

By the way...I have and regularly use, a Glock model 22........I guess I have a vested interest in all this so like many other Glock owners........inquiring minds would like to know.

thanks for all the insight

kind regards

Paul Prochko

[KAL]

I have been told by several action shooters and by one of the guys at EGW, That a after marked barrel would have a fully supported chamber. I have not bought a Glock yet, But was considering one for my wife to use in production Div. But I have held off, to gain as much info on the subject. I would love to hear from shooters who have in fact swapped barrels out what they think. But any way you slice it poor reloading skills or a oops! in this caliber will very likely ruin your day.

[Patrick Sweeney]

I just got a Bar-sto barrel for the Glock book.  (Actually, two barrels) The interesting one is the sectioned barrel.  Yes, Irv sliced a barrel up for me.

The very interesting thing is, with sectioned brass in the sectioned barrel, you can see that the Bar-Sto barrel supports the brass.  Fully.  Now, I'm not going to go sectioning a Glock barrel (nor would Glock send me one) but measuring my G-22 barrel as carefully as I can leads me to the conclusion that I want to be using a barrel other than a Glock when feeding my G-22 reloads.

[Carlos]

KAL - unless you are intent on the .40 S&W, buy your wife a better gun for production:  A G-17 or 19 in 9x19mm. I got one of the GSSF 17s for $398 and installed a 3.5lb connector that I already had as well as a Glock extended slide stop.  Will be using hard CCI primers (in 9mm Blazer ammo) so I left out the reduced power striker.  I got this for my own use but also to introduce my girlfriend to USPSA/IPSC w/ something simple and reliable.

Why the 17 and not the G 34/35? None other than Eric Lund - one of the top 20 in class and formerly local instructor/State Trooper/allaround bad-ass, tried out the Glocks and favored the 17 - plus at $398 it was less expensive fro me to buy new than a 34/35 and I had the extra production parts laying around.

Support is not an issue w/ the 9mm in production division where the powerfactor is only 125 and most folks use factory ammo anyway.  I think the supported chamber issue has been blown out of proportion and led to the 1911, as well as the Glock, getting an undeserved bad rap. Unless you are loading to major or beyond, don't worry about it.

[KAL]

I guess I just went by what I have been seeing at the matches. Almost evrybody is using the long slide Glock 34. When I asked, I was told longer barrel more accurate, lighter shooting, equals a advantage. I was also told why bother with a .40 when you can only get minor p.f. anyway. again lighter recoil faster shots. I just figured I can already reload .40 and have nothing for the Dillon 650 in 9mm.  That and from past Military experiences I have never bought a 9mm. But as for shooting cardboard and steel thats ok. And thats what I am looking for.  I already have all the defensive/offensive pistols I need.  Kal

[Duane Thomas]

Patrick,

That's fascinating. I'd been told that in order to make the .40 work in a standard frame sized Glock it's necessary to have a "non-intrusive" feed ramp. Live and learn. Sounds to me like a BarSto barrel would be a VERY wise investment in .40 Glock land. This all does beg the question then, if it's not necessary for functionality, why Glock wouldn't update/improve/make safe the chambers in their current production .40s.

ppro,

The advantage to polygonal rifling is that it gives a better gas seal around the bullet. All else being equal, same barrel length, same ammo, a polygonally rifled barrel with "shoot harder," i.e. fire the ammo to slightly higher velocities than a conventionally rifled barrel. Personally, with all the problems it causes, I think that's a bad trade, but what do I know....

[Joe D]

Guys, I thought this KB issue had long since been put to bed. I have shot tens of thousands of 168-170 PF loads through my Glock 35. Before I found a cheap source ($8.00m) of .40 brass I loaded mine on an average of 10 times before I dumped it. I use 4.3 grains of Titegroup with a 180 gr. Ranier JHP plated bullet loaded to 1.130" OAL. I get less bulging of the brass with this load than most factory loads. If anyone out there is afraid of their brass send it to me.

One of the problems with aftermarket barrels is their tight chamber. A Glock barrel will feed just about anything. I use a regular set of RCBS dies in my 550. I do run my loaded rounds through a case gauge. I get about 2 out of a 100 that won't pass the gauge test. These go into the practice box.

[Joe D]

BTW I have seen .40s KB in a Sig and a HK. One of the reasons KBs are more prevalent in Glocks is Glock sells 10 times as many guns as Sig and HK.

[L9X25]

Joe,

You practically answered your own question.  You are shooting Ranier plated bullets that are soft lead with a thin plating to eliminate leading.   They generate low pressures because they are an efficient TC shape (short), are soft like a lead bullet, and do not lead at all because of the plating.  The only problem with them is that they are usually not as accurate, particularly in a Glock, as a "real" jacketed bullet.  I used many of the Raniers as practice bullets when I was shooting a 10mm.  YMMV

Leo

[Bronco]

I changed the barrels in both my 35 and 23 to Briley barrels and have had no feeding problems and use the same brass in my 1911 40 S&W.  My loads for both are 5.9 gr. universal clays with a 165gr. HP Montana Gold.  This is several tenths under a max load and is around a 167 pf.  OAL for the 1911 is 1.195 and for the Glocks is 1.130 as mentioned before there is about a 2% reject rate when run thru a case guage.

[DBR]

The Glock chamber measures about .435.  The 40SW case measures .421.  A Sig chamber measures .428.  A Barsto chamber measures .426.  They all feed reliably.  The Glock stretches the web of the case 3.5%.  The Sig stretches the web of the case 1.5%.  The "bulge" on the Glock case extends into the thinner part of the case.  It is a POOR design for a cartridge with marginal case strength.

[DBR]

PS Have you seen the pictures of the Sigs covered with mud and still firing?

[Joe D]

Leo, I have found the plated bullets to be very accurate. I have a post on Glock Talk that shows a 20 yd. 5 shot group fired from my G34 that can be covered with a nickel.

My G35 groups under 1 1/4" at 25 yds. The main reason I shoot plated bullets is cost.

[L9X25]

Joe,

I can only say that experiences with the Ranier bullets vary.  I had a 10mm 1911 gun that would shoot a 2" group at 50yds with Jacketed premium bullets and the group would open up to about 4" with the Raniers.  I considered that acceptable, particularly for the cost.  I convinced a friend that shot .45 to try them.  He loaded up 3 batches of bullets ...  lead, Ranier and Jacketed.  The lead and jacketed bullets shot very well but the Ranier could barely hold paper at 50yds.  The Raniers would not group for him.  In my experience, you are the first peson that has had exceptional results with them.  I later switched my match guns from 10mm to 9mm and the cost advantage of the Ranier bullets became insignificant so I stopped using them.

Leo