TexasCHLforum.com

Zoomie wrote:but the undisputed fact remains that Glocks have a lower factor of safety than do sigs, especially in .40 caliber. As a Mechanical Engineering student, I see this as a design flaw (in a glock, impossible I know).

I'm sorry but I again failed to find any concrete evidence of this supposed "fact" in your post

Zoomie wrote:Also bringing in other aspects of Glock's admittedly stellar record does not add anything to your apparent assertion that a problem with .40 Glocks going KaBoom does not exist.

Please quote from one of my posts where I said the Glock KaBoom problem "does not exist". I admit it is an issue, just don't believe it warrants getting your knickers in a twist as this same thing can happen to any gun given right circumstances.

It happens in Sigs: http://ingunowners.com/forums/handguns/ ... aboom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It happens in HKs: http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/hk-expert.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It happens in S&W revolvers: http://pishtov.blogspot.com/2009/10/smi ... aboom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a few random examples to support my one and only point that this can happen with any gun in any caliber. See, I know Google-Foo too, grasshoppa

Heck I bet you could type in [insert gun maker name here} + kaboom in Google and find at least one photo of at least one kaboom gun from every gun maker on earth

Zoomie wrote:For your reading pleasure. http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

I HONESTLY would still like some more PROOF of this supposed FACT that Glock's design is inherently flawed as you continue to state. I've read much of the link you provided before. It is very interesting anecdotal evidence from a "firearms journalist" that some Glocks have KaBoomed. But I don't see the indisputable FACTS that would make your case that Glock has an inherent design flaw.

Here's what I'm looking for ...

* statistical evidence that more Glocks have failed in this manner than other guns, based on PERCENTAGE of total guns sold vs. total KBs for those guns and factoring in some mathematical formula to compensate for the (wild guess here) increased number of "hey guys watch this" morons who load their own rounds, stick 'em in a $500 Glock (or a $300 15,000-round count LEO trade in Glock), and KABOOM vs. the hypothetical fewer number of morons who do the same with $900 Sigs and HKs. Would also like some statistical isolation factor to determine if this is more prevalent just in .40 or in other calibers of both Glocks and other weapons.

* engineering reports from professional licensed mechanical engineers, gun designers, gunsmiths, armorers - whatever - stating that in their professional expert opinion the Glock design is flawed where other designs are better/stronger/safer.

Short of that, I just don't see how you can continue to assert this unsupported FACT that Glocks have a design flaw. It's a very sound OPINION on your part, backed up with some good anecdotal evidence and if it's enough for you to shy away from Glocks - hey, more power to you. I just have a problem when you go around stating this "design flaw" as a fact without supporting it as fact.

Again, I'm not saying the Glock design does or does not have problems. I'm saying I've read all the anecdotal evidence and I own two .40-cal Glocks and trust my life to them. I'm also not saying that the hundreds of thousands of LEOs who've used these guns nor the countless extreme durability/reliability tests necessarily means anything beyond anecdotal and statistical evidence that Glocks are tough, well-made, reliable guns. Obviously none of what I've provided PROVES that Glocks don't have a design flaw.

But I guess I just feel Glocks are innocent until proven guilty

Anyway, fun debate. No hard feelings. But, as my schoolteacher wife enjoys telling her brain-dead students, "you're entitled to your own wrong opinion" ... just kidding, all in good fun.

Zoomie wrote:Same goes for Glocks chambered in .40, they are not designed to handle higher pressure rounds as well as SIGs or H&K's are

Care to elaborate on this or support it in any way? Are you meaning simply that Sigs and H&Ks have fully supported chambers? If so, where is it written in stone that this is the only design that can handle .40-cal pressures? And if this is so, then why has Glock not been sued? Why do so many police agencies continue to use their products (just because they're cheaper?)

Anyway, before this gets into some stupid fanboy shouting match, I am seriously interested to know FACTS about these Glock .40 KABOOM issues. I own two .40 Glocks. I researched these issues before I purchased, talked to a bunch of people, and felt perfectly safe buying and using these guns as long as I avoided overpressured reloads. Since I don't reload anyway, no big deal to me personally.

I honestly don't know whether you're right or wrong. I'm not a gun engineer. But I buy my guns based on reputation and Glocks have a stellar reputation, as do Sigs. H&Ks have a great reputation too, but this would make me second guess them if I lived in Arizona or worked in Iraq or some other sandbox ... (scroll a bit more than halfway down the page and see a Glock and H&K both buried in sand - Glock is removed and fires all 13 rounds from magazine; H&K won't fire a single round and has to be disassembled and cleaned before it will do so) http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?op ... id=90&Item" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CompVest wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:In a nutshell, any .40-cal gun can go KABOOM if you continue to feed it reloaded cartridges that have been reloaded multiple times already. Glocks may be a bit more prone to this because their looser chambers (which greatly improve reliability at a slight sacrifice of tac-driving accuracy). Same thing would/will probably happen with .357 Sig cartridges, but so many fewer people shoot that cartridge that you don't hear about it as "fact" amongst the grapevine.

But again this is just what I'm told by people who know and understand a lot more about such things than I ever will. I feed my Glocks factory brass ammo and don't worry about it one bit.

Perhaps you should research this statement a bit more. Glock 40s have an unsupported chamber as they were built from a 9mm.

Actually it is unsupported AND looser (at least that's what the Glock armorers I talk to tell me - I'm not an armorer, so passing on my knowledge third hand). The unsupported issue is the lack of full support of the case head. The "looser" is just like it sounds - looser tolerances inside the chamber itself. Again, this is how it's been explained to me ... I'm neither an armorer nor a reloader. I just shoot factory brass .40 in my Glocks and have zero problems.

baldeagle wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:I personally own Glock .40s and trust them with my life daily (as do most FBI agents and a large number of state and local law enforcement agencies). Over 10-12 years I have "trained" myself to shoot them accurately, but must admit that shooting a Glock well could train your hands to not shoot other guns well (as I recently found out while trying to shoot a Sig P225).

This comment intrigued me. I'm fairly new to handguns, having been a rifle and shotgun man most of my life. I've shot my friend Brian's Glock 19 and now my Sig P226. I didn't notice much difference between the two, either in my accuracy on target or the feel of the gun while shooting. The DA trigger is different, but the SA trigger felt quite similar.

What sort of problem did you have with the P225? Trouble with your groupings? I think any gun is going to take practice to start shooting accurately. Last week I shot 80 rounds through my Sig into six targets. The last target had the best grouping of all, which tells me that I was beginning to understand how the gun worked and how to hit center mass with it. (I plan on gaining more understanding this weekend. ) I suspect you'd do fine with the Sig once you've put a few hundred rounds through it. Or maybe I'm wrong?

You're on the right track with your thought process regarding this. I was grouping fine after a few mags of shooting with P225. Was hitting down and left like I do with any new gun that has a stiffer trigger than my Glocks with 4.5-pound trigger pull. And for a while I was purposely shooting full DA pull, decocking, full DA pull again to train myself on the DA pull (first shot being most important). But even the SA pull was throwing me off a bit (lot of slack in that trigger - and this is coming from a Glock guy ). The grip angle is a bit different, not drastically so, but enough that I noticed. Also had trouble finding a good position for my off hand because the way I normally hold it with my Glocks was causing the tip of my trigger finger to rub the top of my off-hand top knuckle because the trigger guard is thinner. Finally ended up gripping it like a DA revolver and that seemed to work better for me.

Anyway, all of the above took time and practice to work out the kinks on a few range sessions. What I then realized is that when I switched back to my Glocks, my mechanics were off on those and I was not shooting them as well as I normally do (at 7 yards with any of my Glocks I can usually make one rough hole with a few flyers - I was spreading the bullets around about a 4-inch circle).

So rather than ruin the years of practice and refinement I have with my Glocks (I'm by no means a great shooter, but I'm confident in my abilities if ever needed) I dumped the Sig. My real reason for picking it up (cheap - about $400) was as a student loaner when I start teaching CHL classes. But after letting a few female friends/relatives with small hands try to shoot it (they HATED it and much prefered my Glocks), I decided it wasn't the best choice. Have since picked up a Beretta 85, but not really liking it either so may be selling it soon.

Anyway, as I said originally, none of this is a knock against Sigs. For some reason I just have more trouble shooting them well. I do a little better for some reason with a P239 the two times I've fired one. Don't like the P226/P229 because grips are too fat for my hands (and now that I'm thinking about it, even though the P225 felt great in my shooting hand, the off-hand placement problems sort of indicate it was "too thin" in some respects). I also seem to shoot better with H&K's than Sigs for some reason I can't understand. I shoot better with 1911 pattern guns than Glocks, but that could just be a combination of better inherent mechanical accuracy plus the last few I've shot have been $1,500 custom Kimbers and such (shooting friends' guns is FUN )

Anyway familiarity is important with firearms, which is why I keep sticking with Glocks and Glock-style guns (Walther PPS) and S&W revolvers ... because I've shot both for a long time and everything else just seems strange in some way. The revolvers I shoot well enough because I've trained myself to do so. They're vastly different than Glocks as well, but my brain sort of kicks into "revolver" mode when my hand touches one. I grip a revolver differently than I grip a Glock, squeeze the trigger differently etc. I guess there just ain't room left in my little brain for a third type of handgun shooting (DA/SA semi-autos).

I was reading something the other day (don't remember who/what/where) about Glocks and some trainer-type person was quoted saying that Glocks are great if you stick to shooting Glocks. But they are very much their own animal and don't translate easily into shooting other guns well (especially classic DA/SA type semi-autos).

bdickens wrote:

Zoomie wrote:I love my SIG P229 SCT in .40

Glock .40's have be know to blow up....

Other guns have blown up, too.

Agreed. That really is about as helpful as "all Taurus are junk" or any other statement. Each gun is different. Certainly years of use by hundreds of thousands of users can start to form a reputation about reliability etc. But blanket statements based on a few events are just blanket statements. If you'll notice from some of my posts, I don't like Kahr because of an issue I had with them personally and other rumors/reputation I've heard since. But I always couch this statement by saying everyone should do their own research and my problems only relate to my gun. Hundreds of thousands of users like their Kahrs just fine and trust their lives to them.

That said, I've owned a .40-cal Glock for 12-plus years. I don't have a clue about round count, but I'd guesstimate it at over 5,000 for sure. I've never had a single problem with that gun other than ejection issues with crappy aluminum-case Blazer ammo.

Of course, I don't shoot reloads either. As most "experts" have explained to me, the .40 S&W is a very high pressure round to begin with. And the Glock (and some others) have relatively "loose" chambers which allow the shell to swell a bit when fired. Reloading used brass from a .40 Glock is OK, but one has to be more careful and not use this brass umpteen times. I'm not a reloader, but this has been told to me by countless reloaders, armorers, etc.

In a nutshell, any .40-cal gun can go KABOOM if you continue to feed it reloaded cartridges that have been reloaded multiple times already. Glocks may be a bit more prone to this because their looser chambers (which greatly improve reliability at a slight sacrifice of tac-driving accuracy). Same thing would/will probably happen with .357 Sig cartridges, but so many fewer people shoot that cartridge that you don't hear about it as "fact" amongst the grapevine.

But again this is just what I'm told by people who know and understand a lot more about such things than I ever will. I feed my Glocks factory brass ammo and don't worry about it one bit.

OP's question is a bit too broad, as nearly every semi-auto pistol maker offers all of their full size and mid size models in .40-cal these days, and many subcompact models as well.

And "best" (as has been said) is subjective based on the particular requirements of the user, grip size and angle, types of safeties, trigger style and performance etc (a nearly infinite list of possibilities).

If you ask "most expensive" this is a quantitative subject that can be researched and given as fact. I don't happen to know off top of my head, but I'd imagine one of the various 1911 custom makers has a few very expensive .40-cal models (I know I've seen .40 offered on numerous STI 1911 pattern guns that are listed on their website in the $1,500 range).

I personally own Glock .40s and trust them with my life daily (as do most FBI agents and a large number of state and local law enforcement agencies). Over 10-12 years I have "trained" myself to shoot them accurately, but must admit that shooting a Glock well could train your hands to not shoot other guns well (as I recently found out while trying to shoot a Sig P225).

I've been impressed with every Sprinfield XD I've ever held and shot, though I don't own one (too similar to my Glocks). H&K USP line is also top notch. And my above comment is not a knock at Sig, they built extraordinarily high quality handguns (just different in some ways - while very similar in others - to a Glock). Beretta and Walther also make fine handguns. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Taurus .... like I said, an almost infinite list.

Best bet is for the buyer to go hold a number of these guns in his/her hands. Dry fire the triggers (with permission of the gun shop, of course). Narrow down your favorites to two or three or four and go rent those guns at a range that rents guns. Fire the same (or similar) models and see which you like best.

Only other advice on .40-cal is to be aware that it does have a pronounced kick to it. Nothing like a Magnum round, but noticeably more "jump" and "felt recoil" than a 9mm in the same size firearm. I used to downplay this until I started to develop some relatively mild numbness in my hands and wrists (possibly early onset carpel tunnel - need to see the doc) and realized how much more difficult the .40 can be to control than a 9mm when your hands aren't working at 100%