Glock Pro Forums banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Guys-

First post here, and joined the forum specifically to ask this question:
I own models G17, 19, 20, 21, and 45, so obviously, I love Glocks!
However, about 6 months ago, I had a kaboom on my Glock 20 at the range firing reloads. Lesson learned.
I also bought a ton of Underwood ammo before this for all my Glocks.
But this kaboom incident lead me down the research rabbit hole, and I was amazed to see so many "kaboom" incidents online (some with live video) with the G20.
Apparently, there's a class-action lawsuit in progress against Glock which alleges that their unsupported chamber is a known safety issue, and the primary cause of these kabooms.
So my question is this: For my remaining serviceable Glocks, is it safe to run Underwood ammo through them?
PS: I went out and replaced all the remaining Glock barrels with KKM barrels, which have better chamber support, but am too nervous to fire them until I can get straight info regarding the safety of shooting Underwood through them. It would really suck to be forced into using only weak loads to feel safe.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,292 Posts
The issue isn't all Underwood ammo, just the hot stuff. Glock's are tested to be safe with any ammo within SAMMI standards. Take for example 9mm - SAMMI has standards for 9mm Luger and +P so no issue there. But there is no such thing as +P+. Any ammo claiming to be +P+ is making up their own standard and what one company says is +P+ may not be the same thing as another company. So there is no way to know if it is safe in a Glock or not.

A lot of people and companies love to load 10mm super hot, so it would entirely depend on the load as to if it is safe in a Glock or not. Any Underwood ammo that is within SAMMI specks will be fine.

Another very important factor is bullet pushback. If the bullet gets pushed back into the casing of the round it will likely cause dramatic increase in pressure. This is especially common with .40 S&W but can happen with anything.

The Glock "unsupported" chamber is, in my opinion, an old wives tale. There are millions of Glocks in service around the world. If it were an issue, it would be a HUGE issue but it's not. The lawsuit is going to have a VERY difficult time succeeding. Glock's argument is going to be that the chamber is designed that way specifically for safety - if a round has pushback and exceeds pressure limits, the force of the explosion is going to be directed down where the energy can be released with the least amount of damage and risk to the shooter, thanks to the Glock design. The excess energy is going to blow the magazine out of the gun and likely some damage to the grip and potentially some injury to the shooter's hands. But, they will argue, that would be better than blowing the slide off (or the back and internals) into the shooter's face/eye.

In my personal opinion, Glock has way to much testing from the 1980s through today by national testing houses to confirm their barrels will safely handle any SAMMI standard ammo. So the question will be what happens with non-standard ammo? Is Glock really responsible for that? How would someone prove the decision to direct the forces down is worse than allowing the explosion to find the weak point in the gun on it's own with unpredictable results?

I don't want my hand injured but I think the Glock design makes sense so I'm sticking with it for most my guns. The exception would be if I wanted to shoot lead bullets or wanted a hand fitted barrel.

BTW - welcome to the forum!
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top