Do you know if this was a result of a double-charge load of Bullseye, or just an older, unsupported chamber? I noticed the missing primer, which makes me believe it was likely a double-charge or hot load over 180 or 200 grain . But perhaps it was reamed out as part of the inspection?
Is there a good way to tell if my old Glock has the older, supported barrel? Can I check the serial number or should I pull out a few Glock barrels and accomplish this with visual inspections?
I didn't expect to incite so much concern.
Glock took care of the problem a long
These blow-ups were reported to be with factory loads.
As it only was happening with the 40 S&W I believe that it was a unique problem.
The relatively new at the time 40 S&W is a 40,000 PSI load in a 9MM sized firearm with a thinner camber wall.
Naturally, not all 40 S&W Glocks suffered Blow-Ups.
But a significant few did.
I do remember that there was a high demand for aftermarket 40 S&W barrels at the time.
About the primer:
As soon as the barrel ruptured, it was drawn away from breech, thus no longer supporting the primer.
Just as seating primers doesn't take excessive force, pushing them out doesn't either.
The reason that it is necessary to drill out the flash holes on brass used for primer only powered wax bullets is because the primers will otherwise back out and lock up the cylinder of the gun.
There easily would have been enough residual pressure during the fail to kick out the primer once it was no longer supported.
To check to see if your barrel is over relieved, just examine your fired brass.
If there is no bulge near the base, you have no problem.
My reason for posting was not to attack Glock, but to defend them.
True, there were some problems with very early guns that got a lot of attention.
It was addressed very rapidly and has not been a problem for a lot of years.
My point was (and still is) that to declare any firearm as the most dangerous is ignoring the human interaction factor.
The most delicate instrument is safe in the hands of the experienced, and a crowbar is dangerous in the hands of an idiot.
The same standard applies to firearms.
My "dislike" of Glock firearms is not based on quality nor reliability.
I take it on faith that if it has to go "Bang" anywhere, any time, after any amount of abuse you want a Glock, because that is what they are designed to do.
They are fine (Ugly) firearms.
As the range master of an indoor pistol range, I got to check out a lot of my client's new toys.
This ranged from original Automags, Whidleys and other exotics to more conventional firearms.
(I shot a lot of Model 29s during the Dirty Harry years... mostly bought by people with no experience and angry that they couldn't shoot like Eastwood.)
It also included a large number of Glock firearms too.
While a Glock shot well and was accurate, my hand accustomed to (at the time) over 30 years of a Colt 1911 grip shape found it uncomfortable.
It is a personal thing, not a fault of the gun.
So, lighten up.... Glock is a fine weapon.
However, My Colt also spits on your Glock!
Shoot safe, be well,