Glock Killer ?

[The Annoyed Man]

Just a get C̶a̶n̶i̶k̶ Glock and thank me later. A S̶A̶R̶9̶ M&P9 is even an excellent pistol for less.
I am biased I never liked the G̶l̶o̶c̶k̶s̶ Caniks

Fixed it for you.

[Beiruty]

Just a get C̶a̶n̶i̶k̶ Glock and thank me later. A S̶A̶R̶9̶ M&P9 is even an excellent pistol for less.
I am biased I never liked the G̶l̶o̶c̶k̶s̶ Caniks

Fixed it for you.

Buy made in USA. Buy SIG M17

[SQLGeek]

Well I've never seen a Taurus described as a Glock killer but here we are. To each his own.

I also don't think the cost of the Striker Control Device is out of line. Design, machining and finishing of small quantity, high quality parts isn't cheap.

I once paid $40 for a simple after market Garand gas plug and I think that was well worth the price.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just a get C̶a̶n̶i̶k̶ Glock and thank me later. A S̶A̶R̶9̶ M&P9 is even an excellent pistol for less.
I am biased I never liked the G̶l̶o̶c̶k̶s̶ Caniks

Fixed it for you.

Buy made in USA. Buy SIG M17

My Glocks were all made in the USA, except for my wife's original Gen3 G19, purchased back in 2008.

Nice try though.

[K-Texas]

Buying American doesn't always work so well for 9 x 19mm pistols. Particularly if you handload. Most of them as well as the Glock Gen Vs have short chambers that effect OACL. The Canik TP9 series have no such issues.

I have not had the opportunity to check a SIG P-320 for it's chamber-length. While I would think that they are chambered identically to the M17, that's speculation until proven. My 1998 SIG P226 has a chamber generous enough that the OACL will be set by what will work in the magazines. I don't load FMJ, but a I have loaded 147 gr. JHPs as long as 1.161" for the P226 that can also be used in the TP9sa. Until Gen V, Glock 17s & 19s did not have short chambers. But as I say often, any bullet you intend to load for any pistol, the OACL must be confirmed for that pistol. If you load 9 x 19mm for multiple pistols and only want to use one OACL, you'll need to load for the pistol with the shortest chamber.

And while the M17 is obviously made to NATO spec, that's still no guarantee for any bullet other than 9mm NATO FMJ.

[The Annoyed Man]

It’s my observation that many of us who reload tend not to reload for all of our calibers, tending to load for limited purposes. So I think that your experience is probably applied over a broader range than most of us. I actually have the dies for most of the calibers I shoot, but I only actually reload for one of them right now—.308 Winchester—and plan to add two others, .300 Blackout and .30-30. And although I have worked up a decent hunting load for the .308, most of what I’ve done in that caliber has been aimed at target shooting, and I now have a really good load for that. But I’d like to work up some good hunting loads for both the .300 Blk and .30-30. Good commercial ammo is available for all of these calibers, but I want to bag some game with ammo that I built. I’m especially interested in duplicating/exceeding the 160 grain Hornady LEVERevolution FTX .30-30 cartridge, which shoots very well in my Marlin.

But otherwise, I don’t have a lot of interest as a hobbyist, if you will, in reloading pistol ammo in order to wring every last iota of performance out of it. IF I have an interest in reloading pistol ammo, it’s primarily about having cheap ammo. I don’t compete, so COAL v. chamber dimension doesn’t really matter to me as long as it is within nominal SAAMI spec for the cartridge. At some point I’ll buy a multi-stage press so I can load a lot of it at once. But to be honest, I just don’t have the patience to build several hundred pistol rounds using my single-stage Rockchucker. If I were a competitive shooter, maybe I’d feel differently about it.

Anyway, all of this is to say that by extension, the chamber length of a particular brand of pistol doesn’t inform whether or not I buy that pistol. I either buy it for its reputation for reliability and features, or for its esthetic appeal—or both—trusting that the chamber dimensions are within SAAMI spec for the caliber. I bought my first Glock because of my wife, as I’ve previously explained. I bought the rest for the first reason—their reputation for reliability. But as I’ve owned them over time, their appeal has morphed also into an appreciation for their blue collar ethic and plebeian simplicity. Yeah, they’re ugly, but they’re not.

[K-Texas]

It’s my observation that many of us who reload tend not to reload for all of our calibers, tending to load for limited purposes. So I think that your experience is probably applied over a broader range than most of us. I actually have the dies for most of the calibers I shoot, but I only actually reload for one of them right now—.308 Winchester—and plan to add two others, .300 Blackout and .30-30. And although I have worked up a decent hunting load for the .308, most of what I’ve done in that caliber has been aimed at target shooting, and I now have a really good load for that. But I’d like to work up some good hunting loads for both the .300 Blk and .30-30. Good commercial ammo is available for all of these calibers, but I want to bag some game with ammo that I built. I’m especially interested in duplicating/exceeding the 160 grain Hornady LEVERevolution FTX .30-30 cartridge, which shoots very well in my Marlin.

But otherwise, I don’t have a lot of interest as a hobbyist, if you will, in reloading pistol ammo in order to wring every last iota of performance out of it. IF I have an interest in reloading pistol ammo, it’s primarily about having cheap ammo. I don’t compete, so COAL v. chamber dimension doesn’t really matter to me as long as it is within nominal SAAMI spec for the cartridge. At some point I’ll buy a multi-stage press so I can load a lot of it at once. But to be honest, I just don’t have the patience to build several hundred pistol rounds using my single-stage Rockchucker. If I were a competitive shooter, maybe I’d feel differently about it.

Anyway, all of this is to say that by extension, the chamber length of a particular brand of pistol doesn’t inform whether or not I buy that pistol. I either buy it for its reputation for reliability and features, or for its esthetic appeal—or both—trusting that the chamber dimensions are within SAAMI spec for the caliber. I bought my first Glock because of my wife, as I’ve previously explained. I bought the rest for the first reason—their reputation for reliability. But as I’ve owned them over time, their appeal has morphed also into an appreciation for their blue collar ethic and plebeian simplicity. Yeah, they’re ugly, but they’re not.

I certainly understand the logic. But for me it's about being more than a hobbyist. I started loading 9mm back when the cost advantage was even lower than it is today. I felt that I could make better ammo than I could buy. I have that mindset for every caliber I shoot.

I loaded on single stage presses for many years. A Redding Boss was the last I bought. I bought a LEE Classic Turret press in 2008, and even then, it took a while before I started using it extensively. I don't want to start a press war, but problems exist today, mostly with 9mm case variations that are worse today than they once were. As a result, I don't ever expect to buy a progressive press. The advantage of an auto-indexing turret press is that you only work with one case at a time. So while you don't get a new round with each pull of the lever after the first 4 pulls, you can sense by feel when there are things like case thickness variations that you would not feel by operating a progressive. Considering the rate of productivity reloading on a single stage, the production rate possible with the LEE Classic Turret is high enough that I'm satisfied. Particularly with the lowest priced ammo in brass cases suitable for reloading, case thickness variation is a fact of life. I do not, however, sort by headstamp, exactly. I simply sort for brands that have thicker case-walls and cases that are in-spec. Essentially, case-wall thicknesses above .011" go into the thick case bin. And for those who may not know, that also effects OACL variations. It doesn't take long to know the variations by brand.

For some time now I have felt that handloaders deserve their own safety entity. It is not SAAMI. When you think about who the members of SAAMI are, Arms and Ammo-Makers, handloading is not exactly in the best interest of the ammo-makers. No single cartridge has gone through more industry changes than the 9 x 19mm, even some prejudice against the cartridge because it was not developed in America. Still didn't stop John Moses Browning from developing the Hi-Power later finished by his Belgian associate.

The first major change came when the 9mm was really taking off in law enforcement use. SAAMI switched to testing by PSI and lowered the pressure rating at the same time from 35,700 CUP, as it was when I started loading it, down to 35,000 PSI which is the equivalent of 33,000 CUP. And they gave no rational explanation for doing it! Anything above 35,000 PSI became +P up to a limit of 38,500 PSI. And while it is said that there is no established limit for +P+, there is the "suggestion" that it not exceed 40,000 PSI. The honest truth is that it is very doubtful that even +P+ rated 9mm exceeds the +P limit of 38,500 PSI and very often, there is no need for a +P rating for a good many 9mm loads that have +P printed on the box and headstamp. Cases even bear that out because there is NO modification made to 9mm cases for +P loads other than the headstamp on the case. They are no different than the standard pressure ammo cases. So the +P designation has for the most part become a marketing tool. Not so much a safety consideration.

Consequently, the .40 S&W was also given a Max Average Pressure, MAP, rating of 35,000 PSI by SAAMI. Almost single-handedly, the .40 S&W became known as the cartridge that caused the widespread use of the term, Ka-Boom. Then when SIG and Federal got their joint venture rated for SAAMI MAP, the .357 SIG was allowed a 40,000 PSI MAP. And remember, with just slight modifications to the .40 S&W parent case. I don't know about anyone else, but I trust the 9mm case at 40,000 PSI more than I would the .357 SIG. Not by any means to try to match the performance of .357 SIG loads, but as a safety issue. I was made aware of a test conducted to see how much pressure was required to blow out the case-head of a 9mm cartridge. Let me just say that it's more than twice of what the .357 SIG MAP is.

So pardon me if I do not consider SAAMI to be a safety institute for handloading. More than anything else, they've been about aiding the ammo-makers in controlling what is possible by handloading the 9 x 19mm. That is the biggest issue concerning the shortening of 9mm ammo over time. Naturally, the arms-makers have to follow suit, even Glock with the Gen Vs, because short chambers are more condusive to accuracy with short loaded ammo. Now even the Europeans are following that lead where you'll see that with the ammo tested in the CIP system. The pressure standard you'll see listed today as Max for the 9 x 19mm is 2350 BARS. Not so many years ago it was 2600 BARS.

The other rabbit they've pulled out of their . . . hat, is due to the almost universal shape of the 124 gr. FMJ that is used by all for the manufacturing of 9mm NATO ammo. It can still be loaded as long as it's always been and fit current pistols with short chambers because of the slim and long ogive of the bullet that at the same time restricts the OACL for JHPs. In terms of pressure, if say, you're shooting a standard pressure factory load of 34,000 PSI that has a built in safety margin of 1000 PSI below the standard pressure Max, by lengthening the load and staying at the same exact pressure of 34,000 PSI, the longer burn column of the powder will increase the velocity of the load. Provided that you can trust the ammo-makers to be using the powder best suited for the purpose. Most of them obviously understand the need to use a low-flashing powder for defense ammo, but that says nothing about the powders burn rate. Particularly for 124 gr. JHPs in 9mm, you can have your cake and eat it too by using a powder like Ramshot Silhouette that's slow enough in burn rate to take up most of the space in the 9mm's combustion area, or usable space under the bullet, while it's also treated to give low flash. Hodgdon followed suit with CFE Pistol and they're essentially chemistry based on the old and bold HS6. The thing is, however, the greatest embarrassment likely suffered by Winchester, was the discontinuation of their powder called Winchester Action Pistol, WAP. Seems the beancounters didn't have the patience to let the powder establish itself in the market, so it was discontinued. Actually made by St Marks then in the Ball Powder manufacturing facility that was once owned by Winchester, they had a powder without a customer. Western Powder Co. took care of that where the renaming resulted in Ramshot Silhouette. Ramshot even used existing load data for WAP through their first 3 load guides. And while Hodgdon owns Winchester Powder Co. today, they did not get WAP in the bargain. Whether or not CFE Pistol is the equal of Silhouette remains to be seen. And when in doubt, check Brian Enos' forum. Not so you can make 9mm MAJOR that is beyond the pressure limit for most 9mm service pistols, but to find what powders they're using to do it. By and large, however, the demographic is not any different than for handloaders of 9 x 19mm, 9mm NATO and 9mm +P. You have the largest portion following the lead of others, while you hope the fewer at the top of the food chain know what they are doing.

So, pardon me again for taking the long way around, but because I can make longer 9 x 19mm loads, the first benefit is accuracy. By sorting my cases by thick and thin, I can maintain OACL tolerances that nearly match what I could do with my REDDING Boss single stage. Those loads will have the least "bullet jump" from the case into the bore. The same principal most rifle ammo reloaders follow for top accuracy. Since the load is longer, even at standard pressure using the correct powder to achieve it, the longer burn column also results in higher velocity. No doubt some have seen my post or articles on the Western blog about handlaoding 147 gr. JHPs in 9mm. A performance level is possible that essentially renders the .40 S&W moot. I've never had an interest in .357 SIG because I don't want to handload a bottle-necked handgun cartridge where carbide die sets are few and very expensive. In the long run, there simply is not enough boost in performance until you get to a level of recoil with pistols identical in size to 9mm service pistols that it is clear today that the .357 SIG is in decline almost as much as its parent cartridge, the .40 S&W.

I always enjoy someone trying to build an air of superiority by saying that handloading for handguns is simpler than handloading for rifles. I would submit that anyone who can handload 1 can handload the other. So taking a page from the rifle bullet book, most of us understand the advantage bullets have by caliber when the sectional density is increased. So, why do we not apply the same principle to handgun loads? It's like some great revelation that heavy bullets in 6.5mm outperform .308 bullets at long range. The 9mm 147 gr. JHP has a higher sectional density than a .40/10mm 180 gr. JHP as well as a .451" 230 gr. JHP. Kinda changes the perspective, don't it. Of course, the ammo-makers can NOT make the higher velocity 147 gr. JHP loads except that CorBon was doing it in the early days of the 147 gr. JHP bullet when the ammomakers were enthralled with subsonic ammo loads that resulted in lawsuits due to over-penetration due to little or no expansion. CorBon was SAAMI then, so how is it that only Peter Pi seemed to understand that the expansion needed would only come from higher velocity, and thus his 147 gr. JHP +P load was rated super-sonic at 1125 FPS.

Point being that it is handloading that allows for such discoveries. I want my pistols to be capable of such handloads, the smaller "boutique" ammo-makers like Double-Tap, Underwoods and Buffalo Bore understand things pretty well themselves, but since the pistol-makers are part of the SAAMI alliance, they have to make their loads shorter, to the point that a +P+ designation is the result.

[The Annoyed Man]

I always enjoy someone trying to build an air of superiority by saying that handloading for handguns is simpler than handloading for rifles. I would submit that anyone who can handload 1 can handload the other.

Yeah, I absolutely get that, and I’m not criticizing your thinking. My point was simply that, within the context of my life, I don’t have the patience for it. Perhaps if I did as much shooting of handguns as you do, it’d be much more worth my time to get involved in it and develop that patience. But due to various unrelated circumstances, I just don’t get to the range as often as I used to, and when I do, it’s mostly to shoot rifles. If I need more power from my handguns, I can just pick up one of three different .357 magnum revolvers I own. As it is, my primary use of handguns is carrying them for self-defense. In that capacity, standard 9x19mm is plenty adequate, whether it is loaded to the "emasculated" SAAMI spec, or loaded to the higher performance specs which clearly are of great interest to you.

Match accuracy beyond typical handgun engagement distances is not as important to me as it apparently is to you. Again, I’m not criticizing what you’re trying to accomplish; I’m only saying that it has far less importance within the context of my life than it does within yours. I am fairly confident of being able to place hits where I need them to be. ("Fairly confident" means that I’m pretty sure I can hit a moving man COM, but less so that I could hit him on the move in the head...and would likely not attempt that. OTH, I’m pretty sure I could hit a stationary man in the head, hidden behind a hostage, if I absolutely had to.) But even if I were restricted to owning just one caliber and was actually concerned about the longer range accuracy (and power) of the 9mm cartridges that I carry, I also own a 16" barreled 9mm PCC with better sights, which takes my Glock magazines, and which ups the MV by another 200-300 FPS more than my Glock pistol.

I like what you’re posting because I do learn from it. But as with all new information, one has to either figure out where some part of it fits within the context of one's own life; OR one has to entirely reorder one's life context to accommodate 100% of the new knowledge.....and I’m too old to start over.

Certainly, if I ever start to reload all of my own pistol ammo, I’d have to make accommodate a larger percentage of your knowledge and experience into my paradigm.

Thanks for the information.

[K-Texas]

TAM, I didn't take your opinion as critical. But as far as arming ourselves with the best tool with the greatest practicality? That is the bailiwick of the 9 x 19mm; not only in this country, but the world over. I don't mean to suggest the term as emasculated so much as miscalculated.

From my perspective, and I knew SAAMI had lowered the performance of the cartridge when they imposed the +P pink elephant upon us, there was obviously an attempt to steer folks to a cartridge they felt better suited to higher velocity. That being the .38 Super in its even longer term designation of +P that's most often omitted where the MAP is 36,500 PSI. Consequently the MAP designated by CIP for 9mm NATO. If I was involved in what I hope would be a better source of information for safety's sake. I'd suggest that 9mm NATO be the universal standard for all 9 x 19mm ammo. But, for better evidence in what I'm suggesting here; take a look at sectioned cases of the 9 x 19mm and the .38 Super. That would make things pretty much self-explanatory.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don’t actually personally think of 9mm as "emasculated" (I carry it without concern). I just couldn’t think of another term at the moment I wrote that to described a "detuned" or "reduced-power" (or however it should be described) version of the cartridge from its original pressure as you’ve described it.

And certainly, the cartridge has nearly universal appeal the world over. I’m not likely to travel to foreign countries with one of my pistols (California excepted ), but if I did, finding 9mm might be a lot easier than finding .45 ACP or .40 S&W.

I wonder from time to time if I might want to add a .38 Super to my collection, but I usually recover my senses and get over it quickly.

[K-Texas]

Gotta admit that I really thought about adding a .38 Super with a SIG P220. Don't know if it's still available in .38 Super, but was last time I looked.

Things are actually better today if you like .38 Super and handload, once you decide on the best ejector, anyway, in the case of the 1911. The Super Comp and Super Lapua are definitely improvements and come in hi-capacity. Then again, there's also the 9mm Super Comp and the 9 x 23 Winchester. Not exactly "Glock Killers" but I'm not exactly a Glock kind of guy.

I'd stack the Canik TP9sa I have up against any G17. Better sights and the far better trigger out of the box. I might even add a Canik TP9SFx or SFl with 5.2" barrels at some point. A truly competition quality trigger comes with the SFx at usually under 4# while the Tactical SFl is around 4.5#.

Just saw a couple of days ago that the turkey president Erdogan is aiming to at least offend France's president at the upcoming NATO Conference. They've already exchanged a few barbs!

[John Galt]

The FN 509 Midsize has replaced my Glock 19. The shape of the grip and the grip texture of the 509 Midsize is perfect in my opinion. I do like a grip texture to be akin to a deeply knurled weightlifting bar.

[K-Texas]

The FN 509 Midsize has replaced my Glock 19. The shape of the grip and the grip texture of the 509 Midsize is perfect in my opinion. I do like a grip texture to be akin to a deeply knurled weightlifting bar.

I like the FNs. Back in 2010 I wanted an FNX in .45 ACP and couldn't find a place to shop and handle one. Bought an XDm .45 ACP instead when they first came out, and because I had experience with XDs, I bought the XDm sight unseen. Great gun in it's own right and now available in 10mm. Tempting.

I like the FNX 9mm's as well as the striker pistols. If they'd make one with a 5" barrel for range and gun games, I think I could do one!

[The Annoyed Man]

The FN 509 Midsize has replaced my Glock 19. The shape of the grip and the grip texture of the 509 Midsize is perfect in my opinion. I do like a grip texture to be akin to a deeply knurled weightlifting bar.

I like the FNs. Back in 2010 I wanted an FNX in .45 ACP and couldn't find a place to shop and handle one. Bought an XDm .45 ACP instead when they first came out, and because I had experience with XDs, I bought the XDm sight unseen. Great gun in it's own right and now available in 10mm. Tempting.

I like the FNX 9mm's as well as the striker pistols. If they'd make one with a 5" barrel for range and gun games, I think I could do one!

So has SAAMI monkeyed around with chamber dimensions on 10mm the way they have with 9mm? If Ruger ever decides to offer their PCC in 10mm, I’ll run right out and buy a 10mm Glock (remember that the PCC takes Glock magazines, else I’d consider other brands). All the carbine would require to convert to 10mm is a barrel change, a bolt change, and a dead blow weight change for the carrier. Ruger is crazy for not offering caliber conversion kits. They already have a .40 S&W version, and I’d be surprised if a .45 version isn’t offered soon. If they don’t jump on this, I’m sure the aftermarket eventually will.

Alternatively, I could buy a .357 magnum lever action to match my revolvers in that caliber. {Sigh} .... so many choices, and so little money.

[K-Texas]

The FN 509 Midsize has replaced my Glock 19. The shape of the grip and the grip texture of the 509 Midsize is perfect in my opinion. I do like a grip texture to be akin to a deeply knurled weightlifting bar.

I like the FNs. Back in 2010 I wanted an FNX in .45 ACP and couldn't find a place to shop and handle one. Bought an XDm .45 ACP instead when they first came out, and because I had experience with XDs, I bought the XDm sight unseen. Great gun in it's own right and now available in 10mm. Tempting.

I like the FNX 9mm's as well as the striker pistols. If they'd make one with a 5" barrel for range and gun games, I think I could do one!

So has SAAMI monkeyed around with chamber dimensions on 10mm the way they have with 9mm? If Ruger ever decides to offer their PCC in 10mm, I’ll run right out and buy a 10mm Glock (remember that the PCC takes Glock magazines, else I’d consider other brands). All the carbine would require to convert to 10mm is a barrel change, a bolt change, and a dead blow weight change for the carrier. Ruger is crazy for not offering caliber conversion kits. They already have a .40 S&W version, and I’d be surprised if a .45 version isn’t offered soon. If they don’t jump on this, I’m sure the aftermarket eventually will.

Alternatively, I could buy a .357 magnum lever action to match my revolvers in that caliber. {Sigh} .... so many choices, and so little money.

TAM, I don't know of any change in the 10mm's geometry. If it had been originally designed for the 1911 it might be a smidgen longer but that's about it. And as you know, .45 ACP Max OACL is 1.275" while the .38 Super is 1.280" with the 10mm coming in at 1.260", so the difference isn't much, but it might have been an issue for the pistol it was designed for in the Bren Ten. Lots of feed issues with that one.

I kinda doubt that the major ammomakers load it very close to its pressure Max of 37,500 PSI, and that left some room for the smaller makers like Underwoods and Double-Tap to push it a bit harder.

Kinda funny you mention Ruger. Their American pistols have a sort of unique shaped chamber-block that allows it to act as a form of braking system. They state that either caliber is made for the sustained use of +P ammo. Then again, years ago, the P-Series in 9mm were rated to be compatible with any industry standard ammo including +P+.

I emailed, but "Ask the CEO" has been on hiatus for some time now. I asked if the American pistol does so well at handling recoil and pressure, why isn't it offered in 10mm? The reply that had to come from an IT person, rather than a gun person, suggested that they do make the SR1911 in 10mm, LOL! Ruger has actually been pretty innovative in how their pistols lock and unlock going back to the P-97 in .45 ACP. They further refined it with the P-345 which I bought, and it was pretty soft shooting. Maybe not as good as an HK USP, but pretty good. Though the barrel was only 4.2", so there was some velocity loss compared to 5" 1911s. I have not seen the underneath of an American barrel to see if they're still using the system found in the P-97 and P-345. There was a diagonal cut that sloped down and rearward and actually a single unit with the recoil spring guide. As the barrel retracted it could kind of free fall downward until the underlug caught the camming linkage at the rear of the recoil spring guide.

If you start a petition for a PC Carbine in 10mm, I'll sign up, it's a heck of a good idea, while chambering 10mm in revolvers . . . not so much. Though I thought I wanted an early SP101 in 9mm with all those moon clips acting as speedloaders, case-neck tension and a taper crimp typically will not prevent bullets from walking" forward from recoil. Even in 9mm. Don't think I'd bother with a 10mm in any revolver. Then again, it ain't Bill's Ruger anymore.

I mean geez, the Austrians, Croations and Slovakians can chamber poly pistols in 10mm, and we can't? It will be interesting to see what SIG does with the P320. But yeah, for what was once the proverbial question in, "is the 10mm enough for bear?" The Danes have put it to the test by giving their troops in polar bear regions the Glock 20. For protection rather than hunting in the mountains, a carbine and a pistol both chambered in 10mm makes sense to me.