Some of the Gen 2 Glocks I have seen photos of on Glocktalk had poorly supported chambers. I would use due caution if someone was using one of these. Their best bet would be to purchase a Gen 3 Glock barrel, or an aftermarket barrel.

Quote from: 4949shooter on March 17 2013 04:10:54 AM MDT
Some of the Gen 2 Glocks I have seen photos of on Glocktalk had poorly supported chambers. I would use due caution if someone was using one of these. Their best bet would be to purchase a Gen 3 Glock barrel, or an aftermarket barrel.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to shoot them out of a Gen 3 Glock and see what the brass looks like.

Quote from: hoss622 on March 17 2013 07:37:17 AM MDT

Quote from: 4949shooter on March 17 2013 04:10:54 AM MDT
Some of the Gen 2 Glocks I have seen photos of on Glocktalk had poorly supported chambers. I would use due caution if someone was using one of these. Their best bet would be to purchase a Gen 3 Glock barrel, or an aftermarket barrel.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to shoot them out of a Gen 3 Glock and see what the brass looks like.

True. And when you compare the Gen 3 barrel with a poorly supported Gen 2 barrel, the lack of support is painfully obvious.

If anyone would be willing to testfire / chronograph in a Gen 3 Glock, I could see if Crossfire would send them a box or two of ammo?  Also, might be curious to see what happens in a aftermarket barrel?

    No offense but I sure hope they are testing in these platforms of their own before sending some to their first line trusted customers. This is how those who are here now did it.

Quote from: Intercooler on March 17 2013 11:00:50 AM MDT
    No offense but I sure hope they are testing in these platforms of their own before sending some to their first line trusted customers. This is how those who are here now did it.

No offense taken.  The ammo I'm shooting was developed at the request of one customer, using his gun to test fire it, with his consent.  A Springfield Omega.  I took and fired the ammo, knowing this and accepting the risk.

I'll tell them they might want to buy a 10mm gun or two if they want to go commercial with this.

Yup. That's how DoubleTap, Buffalo Bore, Underwood and PBR, etc... have done it. I'm sure many others too behind the scenes. Also helps to put that rating out there for marketing. Just make sure it hits close to it or you end up with egg on the face.

I've been talking back and forth with Milo (from Crossfire), explaining the ins and outs of the serious 10mm crowd...

I think the next time he loads some of the hot stuff, I'll get some more to do a more statistically significant chronograph session.  Also, may have a Glock (with Gen 3 stock and Storm Lake barrels) lined up for testing.

I explained to Milo how important it is to report velocities that customers can actually achieve with guns that they can actually own, so it is very important to report 5" 1911 and 4.6" Glock velocities.  He was talking about only chronographing out of my friends 6" Omega, and I don't think that's a great idea, since 6" barrels, although not rare, are not common, especially in self defense guns.

Finally, I told him that if he is going to continue down the path of "hot 10mm", this crowd will want a heavier, premium hollow point load, and a heavy hardcast load.

Milo is a bit worried about the liability of selling ammo that can only be shot in certain guns.  I don't know.  It seems like it's done often enough, as long as it is very clear what it can be fired in.  Do the other "nuclear" ammunition manufacturers state clearly ON THE PACKAGING that they can't be shot in unsupported chambers?  It seems like only saying this on the website wouldn't be enough.  I've never seen an Underwood Ammo box.  I know Garrett does this, right on the front of their ammo boxes:

http://www.garrettcartridges.com/44mag.html

I really like that Garrett reports the pressure, and reports it using the CUP method rather than PSI.  Very good data to have.