Mostly Untrue.... How to Lie with Facts part whatever...

A couple months back I wrote a few posts in a row about how we are lied to using common misunderstandings about science, basic facts, statistics, percentages and the like...

Time to address another one...

So, popular facebook meme:

True or Not?

MOSTLY untrue...

The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.

For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...

Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.

Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).

First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.

Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.

However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.

Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").

In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.

Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.

Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.

Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.

So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.

The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "rawforbeauty.com".

Educating those outside the gun culture who've been defrauded

As I mentioned the other day, my post "Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture" was a repost of something I wrote in another forum.

It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:

"I would hesitate to advise one to carry a gun only because many people do not fully understand the reality that if not prepared to use the weapon and possibly kill a human being, one risks having that weapon taken from then and used on them...


I am not up on current statistics but I believe from past classes that the statistics were pretty high on injuries and deaths from ones own weapon."

I wasn't going to do this, because as I said, this can be an emotional issue for many; and because of the huge infodump required.... But I really hate to see it when a fraud is unknowingly perpetuated by someone, who doesn't know any better.

To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.

There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.

"You are 14 times more likely to be injured by a gun in your own home, than if you don't have one"

and

"Thousands of children are killed by guns in the home every year"

Let's talk a bit about those claims.

First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...

However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.

The reality is very much different.

Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully;  which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.

When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.

Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.

Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.

In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.

Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.

The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.

Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).

Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.

Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.

Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).

Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.

Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.

Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...

The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.

Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.

There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.

Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.

Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.

You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".

There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million -  so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).

About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).

Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.

Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).

The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.

The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.

The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.

Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.


The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.

The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.

Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.

For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works,  "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.

Anyone heard of this possible Glock safety issue?

A few weeks back I got this comment on my "Glocks and Safety" post:

BH1218 - 2 weeks ago

I almost agree with you but there have been reports from Glock that some model .40 can discharge when first chambering a round do to design issues of part of the extractor touching the primer. check it out.

Hmmm....

It would not be possible for the extractor on a Glock to touch the primer under almost any circumstances; and even if it did, its too broad and blunt to set a primer off.

I wonder if he meant the ejector? As in the ejector was bent too far over towards the center of the round and was hitting the primer and making a round blow up out of battery when someone was racking the slide to eject an unfired round?

Not sure how that could happen either, because there shouldn't be enough force from pulling the slide back to pop a primer no matter how hard you're pulling... and even if there was, the extractor should act as a pivot point and the round should just pivot on the ejector and fly out as normal.

In order for that to happen, the cartridge would have to be jammed between the slide and the extractor (which shouldn't happen given how large the ejection port is, but it's possible with certain bullet weights and profiles).

This would put the primer further over to the ejector side of the gun than it should be, such that it may conceivably be possible, that an ejector that was bent over towards the center of the gun as far as possible and still be functional (it CAN happen, I have actually seen that) might strike the primer, and the cartridge might jam between the slide hood and the ejector, and you might be racking with enough force to pop the primer...

Maybe...

At that angle, bent over like that, as thin as the ejector is, the alloy it is, as brittle as it gets like that... I'd think it would just bend over further, or break off. It'd have to be in a perfect position, with a soft primer etc...

Maybe...

I kinda doubt it.

UPDATE: The consensus around the gunblog world, is that what this guy is talking about, is a known issue, but not what he thinks it is.

If you eject a live round with force, while the objection port is obstructed, you are covering it with your hand etc... (for example, trying to catch the ejected round in your hand); the round can rebound off your hand, and end up in a position where it can be set off by the ejector.

Not only is this a known issue by anyone who spends much time in the competitive shooting world (where doing so is generally a procedural violation); but it's not an issue just for Glocks. Most rimfire and centerfire semi-auto pistols have this particular potential problem to some degree or another.

The way to solve the problem is either to not cover the ejection port, or to eject a live round slowly, or both (I generally recommend both; though some pistols will jam a case or live round up if you don't eject smartly).

So it has nothing to do with the pistol being a Glock, or a .40. Though, I'll grant this may happen easier with the Glock design, given it has a very small and pointy ejector tip that is slightly closer to the firing pin than in some other designs; that doesn't make this a design flaw or safety problem for Glocks.

Glocks and Safety

So some of my fellow gunbloggers have made arguments against issuing Glocks to police, or against beginners using Glocks; because they have a high incidence of negligent discharge. Some (mostly those same fellows), also say they just don't feel a gun without a positive acting external mechanical safety, is safe.

Then there are those folks who go on and on about Glock Kabooms! (I do so love that word).

Let's break these issues down shall we?

First, we need to explain that there are two types of Unintentional Discharge, and differentiate between them. Those two types are an accidental discharge, and a negligent discharge; and there is a world of difference both technically, and legally seperating them.

An AD occurs when a mechanical or physical failure causes a gun to unintentionaly discharge; or when a gun discharges when operated in a way not intended to make it discharge. For example a sear breaks on a gun without a trigger or firing pin safety, and it fires; or a gun fires when the safety is wiped off (a common problem for 1911s with unsafe trigger work).

Accidental discharges are quite rare in most pistol designs; and in some designs are nearly impossible unless there is massive damage to the pistol. The Glock is one of those designs.

Negligent discharges occur when the shooter operates the weapon in a way designed to make it fire; when they did not intend to do so. NDs unfortunately are quite common in comparions to ADs. Almost every shooter has at least one in their shooting career. I've had two myself (stupidity on my part), and been on the recieving end of two. One just ended up going through my range bag; unfortunately destroying a holster, and scuffing along the dustcover of my custom Champion (the copper jacketing mark is still faintly visible), luckily leaving it undamaged. The other one I wasn't so fortunate, and I ended up with a 5.56 slug in my forearm (thankfully it was from long range and didn't penetrate deeply or damage much - Hurt like an SOB though).

Negligent discharges are caused by three things. Complacency, Stupidity, and lack of training.

I think it’s safe to say that Glocks have more stupid, incompetent, and untrained users than any other brand of pistol excepting common criminal drop pieces (Raven, Lorcin, Jennings, Davis etc... all of which also have very high negligent discharge rates, as well as high ACCIDENTAL discharge rates).

Glocks are the best selling pistol brand in America (the 1911 is the most popular type but is sold under many brands). They are often purchased by people who know little to nothing about guns. They are often issued to police officers who know little to nothing about guns. Also, they are a favorite of criminals, and criminal wannabe's because of their prevalence in Hip-Hop culture (though this is declining somewhat).

Hell, this guys probably qualifies in all three categories:

All gun types and brands are sometimes misused; but because of these factors, Glocks are more often misused than any other gun.

Let’s say that again: Glocks have a higher negligent discharge rate because there are more of them; and because their users are on average less experienced with guns.

In particular, the most common stupid inexperienced safety mistake, putting a finger on the trigger when not ready to fire, also defeats the Glocks only external safety (which is built into the trigger). The almost universal tendency of the inexperienced to point the muzzle of a gun at whatever they are looking at simply adds to the problem.

The Glock is made to be simple, reliable, and fire when the trigger is pulled; it will not prevent a stupid user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.

For comparison, when the 1911 was new, and all the way up until the Mid '80s; it had the worst ND rate of any gun; because there were so many of them, and because so many people had such bad habits as keeping a finger on the trigger when taking the safety off. The reason why this has changed, is because the 1911 has become the enthusiasts gun of choice; and enthusiasts as a whole have higher equipment and training standards then beginners (though we still ND just like everybody else). Begninners on the other hand are now generally going for... well a Glock.

Making this worse, it was popular among competitors in the 70s and for some time in the 80s to disable the grip safety of a 1911, to ensure more reliable functioning when ones grip wasn't fully indexed. Added to that of course was the fact that most competitive shooters lightened their trigger pulls into the 2lb (or sometimes less) range. Of course they did this using the highest quality parts, expert gunsmiths, and handling by highly trained individuals with safety as a primary concern; and they WEREN'T generally carrying these guns on the street.

When the bubba in the street copied these trends on his homegrown and backyard gunsmithed 1911... well let's just say that when combined with bad habits like resting the finger on the trigger, the results were often dangerous.

The pistol was functioning as built, and designed; but it wasn't built or designed to prevent an idiot from doing something stupid... or actually it was, but it was then modified so that it wouldn't.

OK, back to Glocks now.

Additionally, and again due to stupid and inexperienced users; Glocks have a higher rate of accidental shootings while cleaning.

The most basic step before disassembling a gun is to ensure it is completely unloaded INCLUDING A CHAMBER CHECK. Glocks (and some other pistols of similar action type) require you pull the trigger for disassembely. Stupid users shoot themselves and those around them by leaving a round in the chamber and then pulling the trigger to disassemble the gun. This characteristic (and this accident type) isn't limited to Glocks of course, but the trigger pulling factor, combined with the huge number of Glocks out there make it occur more frequently than with other pistols.

Again, the weapon is designed to fire when the trigger is pulled, and will not prevent a stupid or inexperience user from shooting something they didn’t intend to.

Glocks don't fire unless you pull the trigger. Even if the gun fails mechanically, the Glock striker doesnt have enough tension to pop a primer unless the trigger is pulled, unlike an SA or DA/SA auto where a broken sear or safety can cause the hammer to fall and ignite the round. That's one of the reasons they call it the safe action. It's just damn near impossible to make a Glock fire accidentally under normal circumstances; unless it has been modified in an unsafe way.

The standard Glock trigger is 5.5lbs nominal and the lightened trigger is 3.5lbs nominal. The original NY trigger was 8.5lbs nominal (and is actually a bit heavier). The new york 2 trigger is 11.5lbs nominal.

Any of them are safe for carry assuming proper safety habits.

A Glock with a properly set up trigger WILL NOT UNINTENTIONALLY FIRE ACCIDENTALLY; only negligently.

Note, I said under normal cricumstances above. Those who dislike Glocks often refer to something called "the frisbee test". In 1992 the DEA conducted a series of acceptance trials for new issue pistols, and the Glock failed a portion of the test colloquially reffered to as the frisbee test.

The test consisted of throwing the weapon from chest height, like a frisbee, a minimum of fifteen feet onto concrete. The test was repeated six times without an unloaded magazine and passed. Then a loaded magazine was inserted, and on the third through sixth time the gun failed.

All first generation Glocks, and some second generation glocks (manufactured before april 0f 1991) have frame rails that are slightly too short. In the event of a violent impact (like being thrown 15 feet onto concrete) it is possible for the slide to separate from the frame, and make a light strike on the primer of a chambered round.

If that round has a soft primer, it is possible that the cartridge will ignite.

Generation 2.5 and later frame rails have been lengthened to ensure this doesnt happen under any normal circumstances. In fact, the guns have been tested by dropping them from flying aircraft onto concrete at over 100 miles per hour, and they still didnt fail.

Also the firing pin, firing pin safety plunger, safety bearing and spring, trigger bar, and extractor were all redesigned to ensure it is impossible to accidentally discharge a round when the slide separates from the frame.

In 1992 Glock announced a "voluntary upgrade" (really a recall, but they wouldn't call it that) for safety and reliability, to replace those six parts. The older generations slide can still separate from the frame in a violent impact; however if it does, a chambered round will NOT be ignited.

Now as to positive acting external mechanical safties, first a definition: When I say that, what I mean is a safety device that must be actively disengaged by the shooter before pulling the trigger will cause the gun to fire. This does not include passive safeties such as grip safeties and trigger safeties.

For example, the 1911 has a thumb activated safety that allows the trigger to be pulled, but stops the hammer from moving.

One of the most basic principles of firearm safety however, is that safety systems do not make a gun safe. You can't trust a safety to work; so you act as if there wasn't one and follow the four rules:

1. Always assume all guns are loaded at all times
2. Never point a gun at something you do not wish to destroy
3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire
4. Always be sure of your target, and what is behind it

If you are following the four rules, there is no need for an external safety on ANY DA or DA like pistol (including Glocks), unless one wishes to carry the weapon with the hammer cocked (in which case a safety is needed for condition 1 carry).

DA revolvers have been around for over a century, and have never needed manual safeties; neither do Glocks. In fact, Glocks (and other half cock striker systems) are SAFER than many revolvers, because there is absolutely no way for them to release the striker with enough force to ignite a primer unless the trigger is pulled (or unless you dropped it from two stories up and it hit directly on the muzzle), whereas you can accidentally cock a revolvers hammer in the holster by snagging it on something (I've had it happen to me, and it's scary).

Basically, if you feel that pistols without a manual safety are unsafe, then you are trained improperly. Though you may personally prefer to have a safety, as I generally do, those pistols without it are not unsafe.

The only way a Glock would fire unintentionally that a manual safety would prevent, is if the shooter had a habit of resting his finger on the trigger; which as we have mentioned is a training issue, not a safety flaw in the gun.

Lets repeat that: A Glock WILL NOT FIRE UNLESS THE TRIGGER IS PULLED.

It is so mechanically unlikely as to be nearly imposible that a Glock in proper functioning condition can be made to unintentionally discharge accidentally, only negligently.

I personally have no problem with either a DA revolver, or a Glock (or a Kahr, Springfield XD, SW9/40, Walther P99 etc... all of which use similar systems); having no external manualsafety.

Ok, now that I'm done beating you over the head with all that, how about the Kaboom! thing?

The vast majority of the Kaboom! stories are not the fault of the gun, or the design.

First, a Kaboom is just a fun word for a catastropic case head separation. This happens when cases are weakened near the head (the base of the cartridge), and/or cartridges are overcharged; or more seriously when a pistol fires jsut slightly out of battery; and the case head separates and blows back out into the pistol when ignited. This frequently destroys the frame of the pistol, and often the magazine and grip panels; and may seriously injure the hand, and possibly the face and upper body of the shooter.

Note: This doesn't cover the polygonal rifling issue with soft cast lead bullets. Several designs use polygonal rifling, and all of their manufacturers specifcally recommend against using lead bullets because of excessive pressure buildup as the barrel leads up. This isn't a design issue; and the problem can be aleviated by shooting very hard cast lead, or only using jacketed bullets.

Let me tell you what the two most frequently kabooming guns are across the last 50 or so years. Number one isn't the Glock, it's actually the 1911. Glock is only number two.

Of course we're USED to 1911s; we know what makes them go kaboom, so we generally don't do it anymore.

See non-match grade 1911's have a loose chamber with an unsupported section cut out in the bottom of the rear of the chamber to act as a feed ramp, and in general aid in reliability.

This system works great with the basic .45ACP, which is a relatively low pressure round. Unfortunately, as you increase the pressure, that unsupported and loose chamber stresses the brass much more than a tighter supported chamber would.

From the 50's all through the 80s, folks would regularly blow up their 1911s by overloading their handloads; but you never really saw it happen with factory ammo; because even an overcharge generally wasnt enough to blow the gun up with the factory powders. Also, so long as they were using a steel framed 1911 and steel magazines, there generally weren't catastrophic frame failures injuring peoples hands.

When the .38 super became a popular competitive chambering in the 70's there were a whole series of new case head rupture incidents; because the super is a very high pressure round, and .38 super brass and barrels from that time period were generally not as tough, or as tightly specced as they are today.

There were so many of these incidents among competitors in fact, that a name devleoped for the small pits and scars that would result from the small metal fragments and burning powder being blown back onto the shooter; "super face". It was common to see shooters with a .38 super suddenly show up with a new beard to cover up the remnants of the incident.

This happened to other guns as well of course; but not as frequently as the 1911, as there were not only more 1911's out there, but nearly everyone who reloads shoots the 1911.

By the time the 80s came around, reloaders had really figured out just how far they could push with standard barrels; and what they could do with fully supported, tight chambered match barrels that have an integrated feedramp (like the one I use in my custom commander length 1911). Hell, they even went and made things like the .45 super; which bumps .45 pressure up from 20-25,000 psi into the 30,000 psi range; and .460 rowland which bumps it into the 40,000psi range

Importantly though, the .45 super (and .460 rowland) has much thicker brass in the case head area. Original .45 super brass was actually manufactured by turning and trimming down .308 rifle cases. If you tried to load to those pressure levels with standard brass... well you'd get a kaboom; especially with a loose, unsupported chamber.

Enter Gaston Glock.

The primary design parameter for Glock pistols is reliability. Tighter chambers are less reliable when a weapon is dirty, or springs are worn out, or ammo is slightly out of spec. Glock decided on a looser chamber for reliability reasons.

A barrel with a wide flared ramp at the base of the chamber will feed more reliably; so Glock decided to do that.

That means that most Glock pistols (the .357SIG being the exception, because it's a bottlenecked cartridge) have a loose, unsupported chamber; just like with a 1911 (which by the way does it for the same reason).

Again, this wasn't a problem for the most part; until the .40 S&W came out in 1990.

The .40 is a great defensive pistol cartridge; a good compromise between the 9mm and .45acp. It's been rapidly adopted by police agencies and private shooters across the country; and is now the third most popular auto pistol chambering in America behind the .45acp and the 9mm.

What's particularly significant, is that probably more than half of all the .40 pistols out there are Glocks, because the Glock was the first company to chamber a pistol in it (beating even the designer S&w). Also Glock is the most commonly issued police weapon, and the .40 is now the most common police caliber; and many defensive shooters emulate those police practices.

The .40 was developed as a cut down verion of the near magnum level 10mm cartridge. Unfortunately they also used slightly thinner brass; because the cartridge is loaded to a much lower pressure than the 10mm, at about 40,000psi (37,800 for standard ammo).

Of course that's still a very high pressure cartridge; just below magnum level pressure actually.

Worse, the .40 is very wide relative to it's length, and there is very little room between the powder and the base of the bullet. Given the powders generally used for pistol reloading, reducing the expansion space by seating a bullet too deeply; or through bullet setback (where bullets get pushed into the case through handling or repeated chambering) can quite literally DOUBLE the maximum pressure reached when the cartridge is ignited. This doubling of pressure is enough to blow up almost ANY gun, supported chamber or no.

A similar problem can occur if the bullet is crimped too tightly into the case; which is the primary means of reducing bullet setback, so it's a no-win situation. The best bet is to load bullets with a cannelure (a ridged groove around the bullet), and use a very mild crimp over the cannelure. This will avoid excessive setback without greatly increasing pressures. Unfortunately, most pistol bullets don't have a cannelure, because unlike revolvers, pistols headspace on the case mouth.

So, what happens when you take a thin case, loaded to a high pressure, and ignite it in a relatively loose, unsupported chamber?

No, it doesn't necessarily go Kaboom; but it DOES stretch the case web almost twice as much as in a tight fully supported chamber; and almost four times as much as when it is downloaded to pressure levels in the 30,000 psi range.

If you reload this brass, you are putting even more stress on it; then you fire it again...

and again...

Yes, it's going to eventually go kaboom! in a bad way.

Again, this is not unique to Glocks; many pistol designs have relatively loose, unsupported chambers. It's just that there are SO many more .40 Glocks out there that it appears to be a Glock problem.

Also this isn't limited strictly to the .40s&w chambering, but the .40 has the strongest combination of factors that contribute to this issue. The problem has been reported in .380, 9mm, .40, .357sig, 10mm, and .45acp - basically the full range; but there are more reports of it happening in .4o than in all other chamberings put together; and I know of no reports in any caliber other than .40 that involve factory ammunition, unless it was absolutely proven to be an overcharge or other overpressure situation.

Now it is possible to Kaboom! with factory ammo; and there are maybe a dozen reported cases of it happening that I know of, all attributed to a factory overcharge, or severe bullet setback. Relative to the millions of Glocks out there, it's statistically insignificant.

It can also happen with other chamberings, but most of them don't have that combination of high pressure, thin case wall, and the loose unsupported chamber issue; so it happens more frequently with the .40.

What it comes down to, is if you shoot a Glock or any other gun with a loose, unsupported chamber in .40; don't reload your brass, or shoot reloads. If you want to do so, get yourself a Bar-Sto match marrel with a tight, supported chamber and you won't have to worry about it.

Let's review:

1. Follow the four rules
2. Glocks wont keep stupid people from negligently discharging
3. Glock WILL fire when the trigger is pulled (even if you didnt want them to)
4. Glocks will NOT fire when the trigger ISN'T pulled
5. Glocks won't just blow up for no reason; but if you give them a good enough reason, they will; so don't give them that reason

Are we clear?

Oh and one more thing; why is it that people have it in for Glock so much?

Three reasons:

1. They are ugly pices of plastic
2. They are foreign made
3. Gaston Glock is an arrogant ass who has declared his designs the absolute pinnacle of perfection without flaws. In fact the Glock slogan is "Perfection"

When you declare yourself perfect, that tends to get people to want to prove you aren't; and really just irritates people in general. What's worse is, GLocks are in general so well made and well designed that you really have to go to the extremes to find an objective problem (vs. asthetics of ergonomics which are subjectieve - witness the frisbee test) that it pisses people off even more.

No Glocks aren't perfect; no mechanical device is. They are ugly, and kinda bulky, the grip feels funny, and the triggers arent all that great; but they are absolutely reliable, as safe as any other gun, and safer than most.