Sorry if this is old news to alot of you, I have noticed alot of "Chamber support" threads and figured this may help put some minds to ease.
I got my G27 back from Glock this week and to make a long story short Glock replaced everything except the slide, everything they replaced except the barrel was covered, I had to pay to replace the barrel because Glock stated it wasnt damaged enough to be replaced so I paid for a new one, Glock was kind enough to return the original barrel along with the new one.
I just got back from the range and gave the weapon a good cleaning, right after I cleaned the weapon I found a shell case in my range bag and dropped it into the new barrel and found it to fit pretty snug, I then remembered that I have the original barrel so I dropped the case into it and found that the new barrel has far more chamber support than the old one.
The Barrel on the Left is the original barrel dated 1994 and on the RIGHT is the factory replacement which I will assume was made in 2009, the pic shows both barrel with Blazed Brass 180gr rounds in the chambers, they are not empty brass.
I remember reading that Glock had addressed the chamber support issue a while ago but this is the first time I have seen it first hand, if nothing else I hope this post will help out some of the folks newer than myself and reinforce the fact that Glocks chambered in 40 S&W are just as safe as any other brand of handgun.
I wasn't aware that they had fixed the issue on the .40s. I bought the first G27 my dealer could get his hands on and when they came out. It has an under-supported chamber. I was thinking I was going to have to buy a conventionally rifled barrel. Good news.
The Barrel on the Left is the original barrel dated 1994 and on the left is the factory replacement
I apologize but I am a little confused. The picture is alright but with the reflection of the light I am unable to really see the difference you are writing about. Are you saying that the new barrel is tighter than the older one? Or that the ramp is cut at a different angle?
__________________
IN GOD WE TRUST
Remember the Alamo
They may have improved some on the barrel, but it's still not a completely supported chamber. If you can see anything except the case head, it's not a fully supported chamber, so don't be duped into thinking you can go out and shoot barn burner loads in a Glock, especially with the .40s.. A barrel with a fully supported chamber wil have an integrated feed ramp.The potential for a KB is still there. This is going to be really hard to accept for those of you who have been drinking the Glock Perfection Kool-aid for so long, but it is what it is..
__________________
Socialism is a great idea until the achievers run out of money.
That's interesting. All my current .40's look like the one on the right, including an "E*****" series G27 and G23. (3rd gen.) I don't have my 2nd gen 23 any more, so I couldn't say what the support on that one looked like.
I remember reading that Glock had addressed the chamber support issue a while ago but this is the first time I have seen it first hand, if nothing else I hope this post will help out some of the folks newer than myself and reinforce the fact that Glocks chambered in 40 S&W are just as safe as any other brand of handgun.
I was at the range a while back doing aside-by-side comparison between my G22 and USP40f. My G22 was made in 2005, and leaves a noticeable bulge in the case at 6 o'clock, just in front of the extractor groove. The USP brass looks perfect. After field stripping for cleaning, I dropped a round into the chambers to compare them. The reason for the bulge, and lack of, is obvious. On the USP barrel, the entire round is surrounded except for the extractor groove.
I too have compared my early G22 (1991) versus my newer G27 and G35. The comparison looks exactly the same as yours....more support at the 6 oclock position on the newer barrels. From what I understand, the change occurred in the 2001/2002 timeframe.
Linear Mode
