TexasCHLforum.com

Stupid wrote:Glock 23, hands down. High quality, low price. The second may be XD40.

HK and Sig are fine but higher price.

Money is no object...

carlson1 wrote:H&K USPc .40

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:... but the undisputed fact remains that Glocks have a lower factor of safety than do sigs, especially in .40 caliber.

That assertion is neither undisputed, nor is it a fact

Zoomie wrote:... As a Mechanical Engineering student, I see this as a design flaw

When you become an actual mechanical engineer and gain some actual working experience in the design and manufacture of handguns, then come talk to us about the "design flaws" inherent in a proven design.

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

I am not a Glock fan, in fact I hate them, but this article, by it's own admission, states that all the supposed failures are with reloaded ammo. At that point all the "results" are meaningless. It also states that most of the failures are with .40, .357sig, and .45. 40 and 357 make sense, as they are high pressure loads, but 45 makes no sense as it is a relatively weak load. So even the data doesn't follow. As Glock is the most popular design in the world it makes sense that they would be exposed to over pressured reloadings. So, I just don't buy the design flaw.

Lets start again with some ground facts.

I am not a failure theories expert, and have very little experience in that area

I stated that I was a Mechanical Engineering student, in an attempt to give an accurate picture of my knowledge, not to put myself on a pedestal.

Any gun can go Ka Boom when the pressure becomes to great and ruptures the case.

All different types have gone Ka Boom in the past.

I cannot find any statistics on Ka Boom numbers (if they existed there probably wouldn't be much of a discussion)

There seem to be more reports of glocks going Ka boom than other manufacturers

It is very unlikely that your Glock will go Ka Boom.

The chamber of Glocks is less supported than many other popular models.

All other things being equal, the case in a less supported chamber will rupture at a lower pressure than a more supported chamber.

Therefore, I feel safe in saying, metallurgy aside, a case is more likely to rupture in the chamber of a glock than it is in the chamber of a Sig, H&K, Beretta ect.

I would be happy to continue this conversation if anyone has any new information or insight, but sighting glock's track record in other areas, and stating that other firearms fail, doesn't add anything.

and to austinrealtor, a appologise for putting words in your mouth, it seemed to me that you were saying there wasn't a glock Ka Boom problem.

In short, less supported chambers will lead to Ka Booms at lower pressures, glock decided to use a less supported chamber to aid in feeding reliability. Engineering is a trade off, and my opinion is that the trade off has resulted in more Ka Booms than glock intended. The fact is that their choice lowers the factor of safety, my opinion is that the trade off they made is a design flaw.

If you have a Glock in any caliber I would suggest shooting it as often as possible, and if you shoot any type of gun I would suggest not shooting unsafe reloads.

I think OP asked what is the best .40 irrespective of money. What I was wondering is, has a "classic" .40 emerged as yet, something with history or that sets a standard that others try to emulate? In this sense, I'd regard the Browning Hi Power and the 92FS as classics in 9mm and any Colt 1911 in .45 ACP. Is there any equivalent in .40? (Please don't say my selection of classics is different to yours. What I'm trying to get at is there any .40 that has history, beauty, or anything else going for it that makes it anything other than a tool for driving bullets of that diameter?) I apologize if I'm not very clear. I could be interested in a .40 myself if it is something other than just another caliber (I already have 38 Spl, 357 Mag, 9mm, and 45 ACP). If I were to buy a .40 pistol, I would like to think that it is special in some way rather than just being a slightly different caliber.

duns wrote:I think OP asked what is the best .40 irrespective of money. What I was wondering is, has a "classic" .40 emerged as yet, something with history or that sets a standard that others try to emulate? In this sense, I'd regard the Browning Hi Power and the 92FS as classics in 9mm and any Colt 1911 in .45 ACP. Is there any equivalent in .40? (Please don't say my selection of classics is different to yours. What I'm trying to get at is there any .40 that has history, beauty, or anything else going for it that makes it anything other than a tool for driving bullets of that diameter?) I apologize if I'm not very clear. I could be interested in a .40 myself if it is something other than just another caliber (I already have 38 Spl, 357 Mag, 9mm, and 45 ACP). If I were to buy a .40 pistol, I would like to think that it is special in some way rather than just being a slightly different caliber.

Well it's only been out for 20 years so if there is any "classic" pistol it would have to be the Smith & Wesson 4006. After all that was the first pistol to be chambered in .40 S&W.