For all of you "unsupported barrel" haters out there.

Gibbs505 said:
You mean yet, don't you!:D
Click to expand...

ruger_lcp_380-thumb-500x375.jpg


Good luck getting one of these into the country. I think the barrel is about half an inch long.

Unless you go totally custom, it would work....but the Americans would laugh at you.
 
I get the point about the unsupported chamber.... but I am still wondering if, from the article, it had more to do with they guy's reloads than anything else. Seems he was near the top of the load chart with his load. How fresh was his brass? How many times had it already been reloaded?

Sure his "pet load" worked fine in his other .380 pistol but the axiom for loading for a new firearm is start out at the bottom end and go up in increments looking for signs of pressure. I think if he had done that he would've seen issues long before his little Ruger had the "ka-boom".
 
And that all said.... don't look for Ruger to have any sympathy for this guy. Probably somewhere's front & center in the literature that came with his pistol was a disclaimer about using reloads voiding any warranty. If he had the "ka-boom" with spankin' new factory .380 ammo they might entertain him.
 
NAA said:
I get the point about the unsupported chamber.... but I am still wondering if, from the article, it had more to do with they guy's reloads than anything else. Seems he was near the top of the load chart with his load. How fresh was his brass? How many times had it already been reloaded?

Sure his "pet load" worked fine in his other .380 pistol but the axiom for loading for a new firearm is start out at the bottom end and go up in increments looking for signs of pressure. I think if he had done that he would've seen issues long before his little Ruger had the "ka-boom".
Click to expand...

Very true, if he didn't start from the bottom load work up again, then pretty much his fault because the same load will have different chamber pressure in different gun.

Trigun
 
phatns2pid said:
The Steyr, XD and USP all look pretty much fully supported to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

I agree. However the other makes/models are not fully supported. So much for the "Glock has unsupported chambers" theory. They aren't the only ones. Personally the small amount of brass that is visible is of no concern. I'm quite certain that millions of copies of Glocks, SIG's, Beretta's(ok maybe not Beretta;) ) and S&W pistols have been shot extensively with zero issues.

TDC
 
Sorry but that supposed Sig barrel doesn't look like any of mine. It's close so it might be an after-market one but it doesen't look like the factory barrel in any of my 229's.
 
kxc223 said:
Sorry but that supposed Sig barrel doesn't look like any of mine. It's close so it might be an after-market one but it doesen't look like the factory barrel in any of my 229's.
Click to expand...

I will have to go home to check, but I agree with you as well.
 
TDC said:
I agree. However the other makes/models are not fully supported. So much for the "Glock has unsupported chambers" theory. They aren't the only ones. Personally the small amount of brass that is visible is of no concern. I'm quite certain that millions of copies of Glocks, SIG's, Beretta's(ok maybe not Beretta;) ) and S&W pistols have been shot extensively with zero issues.

TDC
Click to expand...

I think Glock made the term “unsupported chamber“ particularly well known. The fact is Glock chambers are far less supported than most, maybe all pistol chambers. One only has to look at the bulge in the bottom portion of brass fired from a Glock to understand why Glock chambers have become synonymous with that term.

Out of all the pistols in the photo's displayed I am sure Glock takes top award for a loose chamber. As a reloader, often I can not resize once fired brass from a Glock to work in any of my Beretta's, the bulge in the bottom of Glock fired brass simply can not be reformed enough to fit in my Beretta chambers, or the brass becomes weakened so much from the stretching and resizing its life is greatly reduced. I do believe much of the bulge in Glock fired brass appears to be caused from a larger diameter chamber rather than the portion of the chamber that is unsupported by way of material being removed for feed ramps. Thus chamber diameter and size of feed ramps both play a role in the term “unsupported chamber”.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
RE: One reason why Glock is synonymous with the term unsupported chamber.
Controversy arose over Glock's safety standards when in 2001 several instances of explosive malfunction occurred in Glock pistols sold to police departments in the United States.[6][7] Upon pulling the trigger, the cartridge case would rupture and cause an explosion that would tear apart the gun and sometimes send fragments into the shooter's face.
The cause of this malfunction is unknown but may be due to issues with a purposely oversized (loose), and partially unsupported chamber in Glock's pistols chambered in .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10 mm Auto.
Click to expand...
 
WWIII,

You have a point. Keep in mind, that Glock designed their pistols to use factory new ammo only. Much like every other manufacturer out there. When using factory ammo, there is no issue. Even with a supported barrel, reloads are a greater risk.

TDC
 
So the moral of the story is "if you are going to reload, don't buy a Glock"?

Hence, the best caliber in a high use scenario for a Glock becomes the 9mm, as other rounds like the .45 auto or 10mm auto can be quite pricey to shoot regularly if you don't reload.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom