I have long contended that Glock, never one to admit there was a chamber-support problem in the first place, made subtle changes to mitigate this problem over the years. Over time I noticed a couple of things that made me suspect this. More recently there was a third one, which when viewed in light of the others, convinced me altogether.
The first was the gradual extinction of NCIC Bulletins, distributed to LE agencies, describing involuntary disassembly events involving new Glock .40 caliber pistols and new factory ammo. These were common as rain through the early 90's, with several such events occurring on ranges where I knew the FTO. It became fashionable to 'blame the ammo' for those incidents but we knew that same ammo was working just fine through various S&W and Beretta autos- just to name a few.
The second was the changes I've seen in range pick-up .40 brass (all I ever use) over the past 10-15 years. There was a time when you couldn't give me .40 brass which had been fired through a Glock; the stuff looked like somebody's bad pottery experiment, all done up in brass. This pained me, being a frugal sort; 'free' brass was everywhere and you couldn't use it! About 1995 however, some acquaintances related that they were now using said brass, but with a high mortality rate due to 'acute glockbelly'- meaning they were so bad they wouldn't go up into a Lee carbide die. I started loading the .40 not long after that and my experience confirmed what they told me. I've also noticed that in more recent times, those losses have diminished to just about nothing. My outfit issues G22's made in 2000 or so and I've reloaded some of that brass without any 'casualties' at all.
The third and defining event came when I compared two OEM Glock 23 barrels, made 11 years apart. This came about as a result of trying to sort out an aftermarket barrel, to determine why it wouldn't shoot as well as the factory offerings. Shown below are three G23 barrels, admittedly a small sample but interesting all the same. You take a look and decide for yourself.
The first was the gradual extinction of NCIC Bulletins, distributed to LE agencies, describing involuntary disassembly events involving new Glock .40 caliber pistols and new factory ammo. These were common as rain through the early 90's, with several such events occurring on ranges where I knew the FTO. It became fashionable to 'blame the ammo' for those incidents but we knew that same ammo was working just fine through various S&W and Beretta autos- just to name a few.
The second was the changes I've seen in range pick-up .40 brass (all I ever use) over the past 10-15 years. There was a time when you couldn't give me .40 brass which had been fired through a Glock; the stuff looked like somebody's bad pottery experiment, all done up in brass. This pained me, being a frugal sort; 'free' brass was everywhere and you couldn't use it! About 1995 however, some acquaintances related that they were now using said brass, but with a high mortality rate due to 'acute glockbelly'- meaning they were so bad they wouldn't go up into a Lee carbide die. I started loading the .40 not long after that and my experience confirmed what they told me. I've also noticed that in more recent times, those losses have diminished to just about nothing. My outfit issues G22's made in 2000 or so and I've reloaded some of that brass without any 'casualties' at all.
The third and defining event came when I compared two OEM Glock 23 barrels, made 11 years apart. This came about as a result of trying to sort out an aftermarket barrel, to determine why it wouldn't shoot as well as the factory offerings. Shown below are three G23 barrels, admittedly a small sample but interesting all the same. You take a look and decide for yourself.
Last edited:
