Un-supported Chambers?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Also, some long guns, like later SKSs, have a "free floating" (i.e. half-assed engineering) firing pins which lack a firing pin return spring, which, in combination with "soft" non-mil-surp primers and some crud in the firing pin channel causing the pin to get stuck, leads to frequent out of battery discharges, or at least slam-fires.

Click to expand...

I still remember the day I realized that the AR15 suffered from that problem. I've never had a slamfire as a result, but I quickly ceased chambering of rounds when at home (or if I need/want to, I'll at least ride the BCG back home slowlyand use the forward assist if needed to obtain lock.)

Surprised the HELL out of me the first time I popped an un-fired cartridge out and saw a dimple on the primer..

No such oddities with any of my other weapons including one XDm (fully supported chamber) in .40.

To the OP: It's really gonna come down to comfort. If you aren't planning on shooting reloads, I can't say I'd be too worried about kabooms in a Glock (although I'll admit that my choice of .40 and the kaboom stories did play a role in picking my USP and XDm.) I do still plan to pick up a Glock 20 (10mm) and 21 (.45) eventually to add to the collection though. Solid guns, and in the case of the 21, it just felt good.

Related note: I do have a friend who daily-carries a Glock in .40 and the perceived 'risk' doesnt faze him in the least.

imported post

Orphan wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Opinion: any gun with a firing pin which "normally" strikes the primer during feeding, and relies wholly on the hardness of the primer to avoid discharge from this, is of incomplete mechanical design.


Marshaul

M1As, M14s and Garands, just to name a few, all have free floating firing pins. I do not believe any of them suffer from incomplete mechanical design. If you are reloading for any of the above rifles one would be advised to use the harder primers. You cant blame a screwdriver for not being a good hammer.

Click to expand...

Off topic: marshaul - shame on you.

Good post Orphan.

You beat me to it. My M1A is certainly not "half-ass" engineered and I most certainly have had slam-fires with some primers. (Federal primers have slam-fired, the rest of the normal commercial primers didn't seem to, but I ordered some mil-spec CCI No. 34 and haven't looked back.)

imported post

Well, I guess that's just going to have to be chalked up as a difference of opinion. I would not consider a gun with which I "certainly have had slam fires" to be an ideal tool in my toolbox. It has its purpose, no doubt, but I consider that purpose to be limited by short-sighted design.

I would suggest that if government is going to be commissioning the design and manufacture of totally new small arms, that new small arms technology needs to be equally available to the public. And this means that the design ought to be appropriate for civilian use.

I don't think that a design which is patently unsafe when used with store-bought ammo of the designated caliber is appropriate for the average civilian. While I'm sure I would personally have no trouble sticking to the right ammo, I just don't see this as ideal in terms of safety and versatility, both of which are important to the civilian.

And your "screwdriver and hammer" analogy is way off. We're talking about something little more complicated than an inertial firing pin return system, in most cases. Nothing that couldn't simply be added to almost any existing design with little effort at any point in its design.

While you're correct in so far as the tool functions and designed, I think that design intention is half-assed. Like I said, when the government builds weapons, it ought to make those weapons ideal for civilian use whenever feasible.

imported post

Seniordep2010 wrote:

5. 1911- Probably not as durable as the GLock/XD. I've never seen any torture tests done to one besides firing alot of rounds in a short amount of time. Be they are quite nice to look at.

Click to expand...

They just aren't well known. My Dan Wesson has gone a thousand rounds or more without cleaning a few different times, and over on 1911forum.com you'll see a few different posts of some very dirty 1911s that just keep going and going including a 2000rd test of a Les Baer recently. I'm sure Glock guys will go on and on about how their guns haven't ever needed cleaning and whatever, that's fine, but for me personally 1000rds between cleaning is more than enough. Even if it isn't as long as what Glock fanboys make claims about, they pay the price with an inferior trigger pull and an uncomfortable platform (in my opinion). Having the ability to carry cocked and locked on what is undoubtably the nicest trigger of the three you mentioned is a big plus. If you actually shoot all three, I'd be willing to bet quite a bit you want the 1911 when you're done. It's just a wonderful shooting platform.



In no way is that a bash of the Glock or XD. They are both nice guns and I like the way XDs shoot...but they just don't compare to a proper 1911. Depending on the budget I often recommend Glocks to people. It just depends entirely on what the gun will be used for.