Originally Posted by BruceO
But, if that's what you believe, precede. The extractor was never designed to hold the case against the breach face although shooting the short cases takes advantage of the extractor to breach dimension relationship. Possibly the manufacturer should just eliminate the final machining of the shoulder in the chamber altogether under the premise that it is unnecessary. I mean, there is no need to regulate case length and the COAL length could be limited by the rifling in the leade.
When I see Glock (or any other manufacturer for that matter) say that it is acceptable to shoot ammunition in any gun for which the gun is not chambered, I'll buy into it. Until then, this is a totally false economy and any body who does this is totally on their own if something bad happens.
Oh, incidentally, the "no reloads" argument doesn't hold any water because the reason for it is totally different.
Really? Get out your sliderule....
The 10mm CASE length tolerance is MUCH less than what the extractor allows. You cannot chamber a case, within tolerance, and have it forward of the extractor. Therefor, it is behind the extractor, with a space between the case mouth and end of the chamber. If the case fully engaged the chamber, every time, the case head would be spaced away from the breach, every time. This has no relevance to what we are discussing.
If your cases are fully engaging the chamber and the breach, the cases are too long, and out of spec. This has nothing to do with the lede/throat.
If the case head is forward of the extractor, it won't fire. If your pistol fires, the case head is being held, by spring tension, firmly against the breach. If it isn't, your gun is broken, or you've chambered a round other than a 10mm.
Whether or not the extractor was ever designed to do this, isn't relevant. It does it, by design or otherwise.