Glock 21 Torture Test

So, in other words, if I never need to hammer a nail or scrape the road salt off my driveway or chain something to my tires for traction I can rely on Glock. Good to know.
 
B said:
Please do tell why. Unless that is just an unfounded opinion. I have 3 Glock 20s and conversions for several different calibres. I don't notice any difference at all. 1000 rounds through one pistol in an outing isn't uncommon, that says a lot for reliability to me.
Click to expand...

Thats because i have a glock 19 and a glock 23, both with aftermarket barrells and a glock 17 and 22 with stock barrells. They all shoot good, however, the 19 and 23 have issues feeding factory reloads, but my 17 and 22 absolutely dont have any issues with the same factory reload batches....thats why and i believe that my opinion is backed by my own observations and experience. The tighter tollerances of the aftermarket barrells have the increased risk of not chambering or ejecting the cartridge reliably....if you are talking self defence, i would never decrease the reliability of my gun by a fraction of a percent, because that 1 in 1000 failure might cost you your life.

im very happy for you that you can afford to shoot a 1000 10mm rounds at a time and reliably...what barrells are you using....im stuck with lone wolf for both
 
martinjozwa said:
Thats because i have a glock 19 and a glock 23, both with aftermarket barrells and a glock 17 and 22 with stock barrells. They all shoot good, however, the 19 and 23 have issues feeding factory reloads, but my 17 and 22 absolutely dont have any issues with the same factory reload batches....thats why and i believe that my opinion is backed by my own observations and experience. The tighter tollerances of the aftermarket barrells have the increased risk of not chambering or ejecting the cartridge reliably....if you are talking self defence, i would never decrease the reliability of my gun by a fraction of a percent, because that 1 in 1000 failure might cost you your life.

im very happy for you that you can afford to shoot a 1000 10mm rounds at a time and reliably...what barrells are you using....im stuck with lone wolf for both
Click to expand...

I have a stock G20, A Lone Wolf G20 Long Slide and a G20 set up standard length with aftermarket barrel and recoil spring/guide. On top of that I have conversions for .22lr ( this is a kit so it's not quite the same), .40, .357 Sig, 9X25 and .45 auto. All are Lone Wolf barrels/slides. It's not like I am rich, I own pistols ranging from .22lr to .454... It seems that the only ones I ever shoot are my 10mms though. When you put most of your money towards a couple different cartridges it's easy to burn through thousands of rounds.
 
martinjozwa said:
Thats because i have a glock 19 and a glock 23, both with aftermarket barrells and a glock 17 and 22 with stock barrells. They all shoot good, however, the 19 and 23 have issues feeding factory reloads, but my 17 and 22 absolutely dont have any issues with the same factory reload batches....thats why and i believe that my opinion is backed by my own observations and experience. The tighter tollerances of the aftermarket barrells have the increased risk of not chambering or ejecting the cartridge reliably....if you are talking self defence, i would never decrease the reliability of my gun by a fraction of a percent, because that 1 in 1000 failure might cost you your life.

im very happy for you that you can afford to shoot a 1000 10mm rounds at a time and reliably...what barrells are you using....im stuck with lone wolf for both
Click to expand...

Yep, aftermarket barrel has tighter tolerances. I have observed frequent Failure to return to battery on the lonewolf barreled 19, whenever reloads are used. Chamber are much more tighter compared to the G17 I owned. The increase in diameter in some reload's casing would cause it to stuck in the chamber.

But, shooting wise, it was pretty accurate, though.
 
CKWang said:
Yep, aftermarket barrel has tighter tolerances. I have observed frequent Failure to return to battery on the lonewolf barreled 19, whenever reloads are used. Chamber are much more tighter compared to the G17 I owned. The increase in diameter in some reload's casing would cause it to stuck in the chamber.

But, shooting wise, it was pretty accurate, though.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what difference in tolerances you have observed. I have 3 calipers and they all read the same. I was expecting a difference but perhaos my equipment isn't sensitive enough.
 
That's pretty sweet considering I own a G21SF but something doesn't seem right to me!!! On picture 17 I think it is you can see a titanium safety plug/pin and a chrome slide release but when you look at the tray before and after he cleaned it the slide release and safety plug are standard so WTF?????? If he changed parts out in mid test then its bulls**t, it's that or it's a different gun!
Click to expand...

So is anyone gonna answer my question??:confused:
 
GunGuy34 said:
Is there a link to those tests somewhere?
Click to expand...

Umm... how about the comprehensive XM9 pistol trials that saw the adoption of the 92FS for the US Army?

The M9 trial scores MRBF (mean rounds between failures) for the Beretta was 2000, for the SIG 1000, for the M1911A1s used as a benchmark, 450. Some other scores for ya:

Endurance testing:

S&W 459 developed frame crack between 4.5k and 5k rounds; another developed frame crack at 6.5k rounds.
SIG P226 developed frame crack at 6,523 rounds; another had a crack discovered at the end of the 7k test.
All three Beretta 92SB-F guns and all three H&K P7M13 guns made it through with no problems

Reliability testing (wet phase/dry phase):

M1911A1 control, 100%/100%.
H&K P7M13, 99%/100%.
Beretta 92SB-F, 97%/98%.
S&W Model 459, 98%/96%.
SUG P226, 98%/79%.
Walther P88 failed both tests, results were not released.

Reliability testing (salt water corrosion):

after 10 days of testing,
M1911A1 control was 99%
Beretta 92SB-F was 100%
SIG P226 was 100%
S&W 456 was 97%
H&K P7M13 was 86%.

Latest scores are over 30K MRBF for the M9, 15K for the M11 (SIG P228) and 6K for the HK Mk 23 .45 BTW.

Bids?

On 18 Sept 84 the Army determined that the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92SB-F "technically acceptable." SIG actually won the first bid and had the contract. The Army added some mags and spare parts and asked for more bids. SIG kept the same price, Beretta lowered their price. Did Beretta get some insider info leaked? Did we want cruise missile bases in Italy? Was their a connection? Prove it.

The slide fiasco...

The Army measured pressure wrong in early lots, and some ammo exceeded proof load levels. The SEALs were experimenting w very heavy (147-158 grain) high pressure sub sonic ammo. Pistols were shot long after locking blocks broke and should have been replaced. Beretta may have used some slides from a cancelled French contract w tellurium instead of calcium or selenium in the base metal that was too brittle. All came together and slides broke. From Army tests to slide failure:

1 -- 2/08/88; 6,007 rounds; M9
2 -- 3/10/88; 4,908 rounds; M9
3 -- 3/14/88; 17,408 rounds; 92SB-F
4 -- 3/16/88; 21,264 rounds; 92F
5 -- 3/17/88; 24,656 rounds; 92F
6 -- 3/17/88; 7,806 rounds; M9
7 -- 5/23/88; 21,942 rounds; M9
8 -- 5/26/88; 21,486 rounds; M9
9 -- 6/22/88; 23,310 rounds; M9
10 -- 7/14/88; 30,083 rounds; M9
11 -- 8/18/88; 30,545 rounds; M9
12 -- 8/25/88; 27,684 rounds; M9

You will note that the commercial version guns all went 17k+ rounds, while the three outliers at significantly less than 10k
rounds were M9s ... this supports that unusual metallurgy was involved in
some of the early production M9 guns.

Altogether, the average was 19,758 rounds before slide destruction. Remove the three outliers and the average becomes 24,264 rounds. Contract service life only specified 5000 rounds. Latest guns tested (with good mil-spec ammo)lasted 35K for frames, 75K for slides/barrels, 20K for blocks. No problem.

The SEALs spooked and wanted something right away before the problem was "fixed", bought some SIG 226s cause they were more reliable than the Glocks they tested at the time. I've done joint exercises w SEALs that carried HK USPs. They still use M1911A1s and S&W M66 357 Mag revolvers too. They have lots of toys.

The DOD wanted a compact pistol too. The Beretta and SIG passed again, SIG held on to the low bid this time, and the M11 (SIG P228)contract was signed in 92. In 96 the Navy/USMC bought some more M11s for pilots and investigators. They also bought about 50K more M9s BTW.

To date the DOD has bought more than 450K M9s, 100K more than the original contract called for. They must really hate them.
Click to expand...
 
So based on the M9 trial criteria, and the obvious reliability/corrosion/impact/lack of care shown in the Glock 21 test, a Glock 17 would win hands down today?:stirthepot2:

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope the season finds you at peace.
 
Last edited:
RememberTheSomme said:
So based on the M9 trial criteria, and the obvious reliability/corrosion/impact/lack of care shown in the Glock 21 test, a Glock 17 would win hands down today?:stirthepot2:

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope the season finds you at peace.
Click to expand...

I have no doubts that a glock would outlast any pistol in the market today.
 
GunGuy34 said:
I have no doubts that a glock would outlast any pistol in the market today.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about this statement, I have two G17 and they are very reliable good gun, but so as many other gun that I have owned. Remember it is a tool, a mechanical devise, they will fail at some point. The magic and so call perfection indestructable of Glock been proven less and less true. I have read more and more fail report latey, the gen 4 has gone through two different slides and three or four different recoil spring assemble and still not finish the bugs hunting. I think the design is good but workmanship and qc rule everything. Many main stream guns like Glock is made in the State now, I am not sure down the road they are still as reliable as before because different workmanship and QC standard.

Trigun
 
I think if the Glock were the ideal MILITARY pistol, more militaries would have adopted it. In general, they have not. MOST countries are choosing designs by Beretta and SIG of late.

There are a variety of reasons for this, I suspect. For one thing, the US ARMY trial criteria are very specific and certainly more scientific then a guy in his garage. Will a Glock perform like an M9 when frozen to 20 below? Will it work equally well in blistering heat? Will it operate with dirty or sub-standard ammunition? Can several parts of the pistol break and the mechanism still operate? For example, an M9 will still function with a broken slide stop and a broken firing pin. A Glock will not.

Next, does it have the basic features desireable in a MILITARY firearm? I would argue no. Military arms doctrine usually calls for a mechanical safety, for example. The weapon will almost ALWAYS be drawn under stress, so typically they prefer the weapon to have a heavy DA first pull and de-cocked carry.

If you discount Police departments and small specialized units, only Austria, Indonesia, Israel, Iraq, Finland and a few other small countries issue the Glock widely to military units. Of those, Iraq is the single largest user with about 115K guns in service. This is puny compared to the competing models.
 
Trigun said:
I am not sure about this statement, I have two G17 and they are very reliable good gun, but so as many other gun that I have owned. Remember it is a tool, a mechanical devise, they will fail at some point. The magic and so call perfection indestructable of Glock been proven less and less true. I have read more and more fail report latey, the gen 4 has gone through two different slides and three or four different recoil spring assemble and still not finish the bugs hunting. I think the design is good but workmanship and qc rule everything. Many main stream guns like Glock is made in the State now, I am not sure down the road they are still as reliable as before because different workmanship and QC standard.

Trigun
Click to expand...

After a little research i guess i jumped the gun. The Gen 4s have had some probs due to the recoil spring. Mr Glock himself is testing this out , trying different ammo. He tests a G19 right out of the box and it does have a FTE. Here watch for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTGC0Lo2JgE
 
Komaromi said:
That's pretty sweet considering I own a G21SF but something doesn't seem right to me!!! On picture 17 I think it is you can see a titanium safety plug/pin and a chrome slide release but when you look at the tray before and after he cleaned it the slide release and safety plug are standard so WTF?????? If he changed parts out in mid test then its bulls**t, it's that or it's a different gun!
Click to expand...


Komaromi said:
So is anyone gonna answer my question??:confused:
Click to expand...

Fine, I'll take a crack at it. As for the safety plug... isn't the correct term safety plunger? In pic 17 it does look pretty shiny and yellow, much like a Lightning Strike aftermarket. Could it be a whitebalance issue with the digital camera? Mmm... doesn't appear so. I'll put you down for one point. As for the slide release: I disagree that picture 17 shows a chromed one. It is merely worn, and matches IMHO perfectly to the one in picture 27 (i think it was 27), where the pistol has been shot at. No soup for you there.
Would a safety plunger changeout make any difference to the results.... probably not. Would changing the odd part negate credibility etc... to each their own. Trust No One, it is the internet afterall.
Good observation though.

http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/glockpartsandaccessories.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom