Johnson vs. Glock Lawsuit

[TheSierraDrifter]

Apologies if this topic is being listed discussed elsewhere, i did a search and couldn't find it.

Has anyone received the little postcard size mailer that is announcing a class action lawsuit against Glock (Johnson vs. Glock)? It's claiming that Glock did not make customers aware of an issue with "unsupported chambers", which from what I could tell is alleging that this problem can result in bulging or damaged casings, as well as a possible explosion upon firing (aka kaboom). I remember hearing unsubstantiated claims about Glocks blowing up years ago, but I don't remember any legitimacy to it. Seems like a frivolous lawsuit to me, and reading further on a reddit site, looks like a judge had some serious misgivings about the claims, and a lack of substantiation from whoever Johnson is. Anybody know anything more about this?

[Devilock04]

There’s a thread in Off Topic. That section gets the most traffic now a days.

https://www.calguns.net/forum/general-discussion/the-off-topic-discussion-lounge/54819182-i-got-a-notice-that-glock-is-being-sued-~

The guy is mad he can’t reload a case as many times as he wants due to the Glock bulge.

[TheSierraDrifter]

Thanks for sending me the link. For some reason, I didn't see it. I reviewed the post, and am glad that everyone commenting agrees it's a bogus claim. Thanks again Devilock!

[The Gleam]

'Johnson' should be taken out behind the wood shed and beaten.

What a puke. I've had a lot of Glocks since the 1980s, and this has never been an issue. Probably a fabricated approach designed by a CA Anti-2nd Amendment org, and backed, maybe Bloomberg/Everytown, Soros, Giffords, etc.

They really hate Glocks. First the BS cruciform trigger suit, now this? Troll is obvious troll.

I can only suspect some California Poverty Law style gun conyrol activist is backing this guy and supporting this suit. Being that it's likely nany CA LEO departments bought they guns too, does that now make them a party to the suit?

---

[Rumblemonkey]

I missed the first post too-(Feb 5th), but had to scroll down a bit to find it.

[The Gleam]

"Corbin Dallas' brought up a good point about DROS records in the OT thread on this lawsuit.

I think it would be a viable lawsuit if someone with some help from CRPA sued the CA DOJ/Bonta for releasing that DROS information to a private party for little more than a civil-suit.

I suppose if after a suit were adjudicated, determining some product liability safety issue with Glocks, the STATE would be within their right to send out notices directly to Glock owners of an inherent danger/recall, but not share that information with private parties before or after.

I think they screwed up here doing that, and it's worth CRPA/Chuck Michel looking into it - but will they? It would be good to hear from some genuine legal minds on the matter.

---

[Rumblemonkey]

Putting the notice in an envelope would have gone a long way-

[OLD-skool454#3]

That notice came in handy when I was testing some reloads for poa.

[Sugarfoot47]

I got the notice in the mail on Monday. Threw it away.

[CALI-gula]

Someone needs to castrate this 'Johnson.'

.

[Rumblemonkey]

Sugarfoot, looks like you are part of the suit!

[Sugarfoot47]

The thing of it is, I bought my Gen 3 G19 new in October of 2000. Maybe five percent of the time I used factory ammo. All other times I used my own copper plated reloads made on a Dillon 650 that my late friend ( who went by the username Redhorse)and I purchased new in 1994. 115, 124, 147 grain and even recently did some 94 grain Norma frangible rounds. In all that time using proper safety procedures and undivided attention to what I was doing, I never had any signs of potential problems associated with an unsupported chamber. This guy either had a rare occurance where his factory round was mistakenly loaded beyond proof specs or he used a reload that was doubled charged accidentally. My friend bought his Glock 22 on the same day I did at Gordon's Gun Shop located in San Bernardino. There was a big controversy at one time about unsupported chambers specifically in the .40 S&W models. The loads Redhorse made using the Dillon gave him absolutely no trouble and also showed no signs attributed to an unsupported chamber. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was a bad round, not a bad firearm.

[Thrashard340]

We ignored it. Funny thing is, my Wife owns one Glock and received the letter. I own 5 Glocks and didn't get it.😂

[CALI-gula]

The thing of it is, I bought my Gen 3 G19 new in October of 2000. Maybe five percent of the time I used factory ammo. All other times I used my own copper plated reloads made on a Dillon 650 that my late friend ( who went by the username Redhorse)and I purchased new in 1994. 115, 124, 147 grain and even recently did some 94 grain Norma frangible rounds. In all that time using proper safety procedures and undivided attention to what I was doing, I never had any signs of potential problems associated with an unsupported chamber. This guy either had a rare occurance where his factory round was mistakenly loaded beyond proof specs or he used a reload that was doubled charged accidentally. My friend bought his Glock 22 on the same day I did at Gordon's Gun Shop located in San Bernardino. There was a big controversy at one time about unsupported chambers specifically in the .40 S&W models. The loads Redhorse made using the Dillon gave him absolutely no trouble and also showed no signs attributed to an unsupported chamber. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was a bad round, not a bad firearm.

The only time I ever heard of a 'big' controversy with unsupported chambers was with Colt's 10mm Delta guns compared to other firearms chambered for 10mm. While similar diameter, the 10mm is considerably hotter.

Never heard of the concern about .40S&W in Smith guns. Not saying it wasn't, but don't recall it.

.