true about glock all the stuff he said about under water in sand and all
is all that true or fluff
Lorenzo Council- Thanks a lot, brotherfuxker
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > U.S. Marshals (1998) Discussion > true about glock all the stuff he said a...
Glocks are good guns but I still don't recommend shooting them under water or while the bore is clogged. If you do, you could possibly blow the barrel.
shareI'm not sure about the sand part but under water is true as long as the seals in the gun are water tight, should fire fine. www.glock.com for more info.
share<I'm not sure about the sand part but under water is true as long as the seals in the gun are water tight, should fire fine. www.glock.com for more info.>
Could you please tell me where these seals are in the Glock? I looked on the Glock website and could find no mention of them. Thanks.
Glocks are about as tough as stones, you can count on them to shoot almost every time. Personally I don't like the grip on most of the Glock models, but I still respect their outstanding reliability. I believe most guns can function under water, though you need good ammo that won't allow water to soak the primer or the main powder charge. Those asking about a Glock firing filled with sand, etc. should google "Glock torture test". Some folks have put those pistols through absolute hell and they work great still. My last thought on firing under water was that I was once told the sonic concussion from an underwater discharge could really damage your hearing. I have no evidence to back that, but it does make sense as I'd imagine the sound waves don't disperse under water as readily as they would out in the open.
shareThere is video available of the glock firing under water, and there are special striker parts specifically for special forces to allow the water to flow OUT of the gun more easily for those such as seals and force recon. (bushings) The danger is NOT firing the gun UNDER water when the gun is full of water and there is water outside the barrel and the pressures are equal all around the gun, the danger would be either firing the gun with ONLY the end of the barrel under water, or with portions of the gun still containing water after you left. You don't need or want special seals as you WANT the gun to fill with water and want equalized pressure in and around the gun for safe funtioning.
As a glock firearms instructor I have seen video of many different firearms fired under water and they fire fine, and are lethal, but the range is greatly reduced due to the resistance of the water on the bullet. In some cases the autos fail to properly cycle, and must be hand cycled to eject and load the next round due to the resistance of the water slowing the cycling of the slide.
Firing under water? Think of the bang stick used for sharks? All that is in reality is either a .357, .44, or 12 gauge round mounted in a device that contains a very short muzzle and a firing device. When the muzzle is pushed hard against the shark the base of the bullet is pushed back against the fixed firing pin (in most cases) and the round fires.
As for the torture tests of the glock, they are well documented and you can google them and see the results. IN fact, NYC police found a glock under a dumpster that had been used in a homicide that had been there for "years" and although there was some rust, the gun functioned and was able to be fired for ballistic testing.
I was a police officer for 24 years. The only time I ever saw a Glock malfunction was during qualification. An offficer was using a smaller Glock Mod. 27 (9 shot) and didn't want to have to reload as often, so she used a long 15 round magazine in it. The handle on the Mod. 27 is only long enough to take two fingers and her little finger was pulling back on the protruding part of the longer magazine, knocking it out of alignment and causing failures to feed the next cartridge. Glock pistols are not the most elegant (look like they were carved from a lump of coal). I think the 1861 Colt revolver is the most graceful looking firearm I've ever seen, but I wouldn't want to have to use one in a fight. I would trust, and have trusted, my skinny little butt to a Glock over any other sidearm on the market.
sharethanks for the help and your time to reply
thank you
Lorenzo Council- Thanks a lot, brotherfuxker
It's better than that
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item
Sand, garden soil, baby powder, salt water, sand, baby power and saltwater mixed together, shot at with a .22, driven over by a car, being pulled while attached to the car by a string, dropped from the roof, dropped from an airplane.
[deleted]
It's not my gun.
I don't think I'd do that to my gun either, I wouldn't buy two guns just to 'test' one of them like that either..