Glock 40 S&W case failures? XD safer?

[rideanddive]

I've read that because the Glock was originally designed for 9mm it doesn't do as well with the 40 S&W in regards to safety. The following is taken from Wikipedia, though I've sen the same basic information elsewhere on the internet.

"The .40 S&W has been noted in a number of cartridge case failures, particularly in older Glock pistols due to the relatively large area of unsupported case head in those barrels, given its high working pressure. The feed ramp on the Glock .40 S&W pistols are larger than normal, which leaves the rear bottom of the case unsupported, and it is in this unsupported area that the cases fail. Most, but not all, of the failures have occurred with reloaded or remanufactured ammunition. Cartridges loaded at or above the SAAMI pressure, or slightly oversized cases which fire slightly out of battery are often considered to be the cause of these failures."

Over the years I've grown quite fond of my hands and don't want to lose them to a Glock Kaboom. Does the feed ramp on the XD 40 S&W provide better support?

[sierrawoodsman]

It can happen with any auto loader! This has been beat to death, don't use non jacketed bullets in a glock.

[vta]

glocks unsupported chamber causes the end of the case to develop a 'belly' with a high pressure cartridge like the 40sw. A fully support chamber like the XD is better in preventing that but that only matters if you are reloading. It might not be wise to reload a 'glocked' 40sw case multiple times but people have done it without much issues. kabooms are more related to double charges than the unsupported chamber and it can happen in any gun.

[Nra-Life-Member]

I've read that because the Glock was originally designed for 9mm it doesn't do as well with the 40 S&W in regards to safety. The following is taken from Wikipedia, though I've sen the same basic information elsewhere on the internet.

"The .40 S&W has been noted in a number of cartridge case failures, particularly in older Glock pistols due to the relatively large area of unsupported case head in those barrels, given its high working pressure. The feed ramp on the Glock .40 S&W pistols are larger than normal, which leaves the rear bottom of the case unsupported, and it is in this unsupported area that the cases fail. Most, but not all, of the failures have occurred with reloaded or remanufactured ammunition. Cartridges loaded at or above the SAAMI pressure, or slightly oversized cases which fire slightly out of battery are often considered to be the cause of these failures."

Over the years I've grown quite fond of my hands and don't want to lose them to a Glock Kaboom. Does the feed ramp on the XD 40 S&W provide better support?

I have never read about a Kaboom with any factory ammo...

[PonchoTA]

Steyr's were designed for .40S&W, and have a fully supported chamber too.

Out-Glocks the Glock!



.

[Josh3239]

I remember there was big debate about this on ARF. Some guy who did competitions who had many thousands of rounds through his Glock put in his experience. All of these failure seem to happen with reloads, and if people are really worried Bar Sto makes Glock barrels that fully support the casing.

[BlackonBlack]

That's really the only problem with Glocks in their design the unsupported chamber. H&K's and others have a fully supported chamber which would resuce (but not negate) kabooms. In any event a kaboom is quite rare especially if you use quality ammo.

[Josh3239]

That's really the only problem with Glocks in their design the unsupported chamber.

Problem? More like a trade off, yes? I was under the impression the unsupported chamber is part of what made it as reliable as it is.

[vta]

Problem? More like a trade off, yes? I was under the impression the unsupported chamber is part of what made it as reliable as it is.

the reliability has more to do with the loose fitting parts and the few number of parts that go into making the firearm. i suppose having a shorter chamber that requires less of the case to go into battery could make feeding easier but i dont know how much it contributes.

[Miltiades]

Glock .40 barrels have changed over time

I have a Glock 23 manufactured about 1995, and the original barrel that came with the gun. About 2005 I bought a new factory Glock 23 barrel and have been using the new barrel since then. It is interesting to compare the two barrels by holding them adjacent to each other and dropping a .40 cartridge in each one.

If you look at the "6 o'clock" position on the barrels, you will see a crescent shaped area on the old barrel where the side of the brass cartridge is less than fully supported, and a sliver of brass is clearly visible. When you look at the newer Glock barrel, you can see very little brass showing, and the cartridge is almost fully supported at the 6 o'clock position.

I have read elsewhere that Glock quietly increased the amount of metal on their .40 barrels at that position, such that the newest Glock barrels have better support than the older ones. My comparison of my old and new Glock 23 barrels convinced me of this.

Is it possible that this is no longer a consideration on a newer Glock .40? Yet the story lives on.

[Rob Roy]

Steyr's were designed for .40S&W, and have a fully supported chamber too.

Out-Glocks the Glock!



.

From personal experience, reliability is not there. Had FTEs where the casings had to be punched out with the rod!!! Figured you gotta keep the extractor very clean. I doubt I'd bet my life on it after that.

[Rob Roy]

There was a thread a while ago about a KBed revolver, so I wouldn't worry about the Glock

[vta]

I have a Glock 23 manufactured about 1995, and the original barrel that came with the gun. About 2005 I bought a new factory Glock 23 barrel and have been using the new barrel since then. It is interesting to compare the two barrels by holding them adjacent to each other and dropping a .40 cartridge in each one.

If you look at the "6 o'clock" position on the barrels, you will see a crescent shaped area on the old barrel where the side of the brass cartridge is less than fully supported, and a sliver of brass is clearly visible. When you look at the newer Glock barrel, you can see very little brass showing, and the cartridge is almost fully supported at the 6 o'clock position.

I have read elsewhere that Glock quietly increased the amount of metal on their .40 barrels at that position, such that the newest Glock barrels have better support than the older ones. My comparison of my old and new Glock 23 barrels convinced me of this.

Is it possible that this is no longer a consideration on a newer Glock .40? Yet the story lives on.

actually i did look at my new Glock 23 stock barrel and compared side by side with my XD 40 stock barrel. The difference in chamber support is hardly noticeable.

After each trip to the range though, i do see a difference in the fired brass from each pistol. I am having to 'deglock' about half of my brass thru my 40sw sizer die before using it.

Being there are so many older glocks out there and new gun owners are buying them used from other people, thats why the story is living on.

[BlackonBlack]

Problem? More like a trade off, yes? I was under the impression the unsupported chamber is part of what made it as reliable as it is.

I can see how an unsupported chamber may make it easier for the gun to load and unload the road. So I bet you're right

However there are many other guns that also have an unsupported chamber and as luck would have it Glocks are still more reliable.

H&K's have a fully supported chamber and they are rumored to be on par with Glock reliability. So clearly there are other factors.

[PonchoTA]

From personal experience, reliability is not there. Had FTEs where the casings had to be punched out with the rod!!! Figured you gotta keep the extractor very clean. I doubt I'd bet my life on it after that.

Send it to Steyr Arms, they'll work it to where it's supposed to be. You might have a previous generation extractor, whereas the newer ones are dead nuts on. I've got the contact info if you want it.

I've shot several hundred rounds (easily over a thousand) through my M40 and had exactly zero faults with it. No FTE's, no FTF's, nothing but 100% reliable, with every kind of ammo I've shot through it.

My S40 has several hundred rounds through it too, with zero problems, and I got it used with about 500 rounds stated from previous owner.

I trust my life to either of them, easily.

My 2 cents...

.