[Wvladimire]

Yes the video shows him pick it up out of the mud and look down the barrel. What I find unbelievable and laughable is that the bore was not filled with mud, especially when it landed muzzle first. Despite all you hard core Glock fans, this does go against the laws of physics, and would be impossible to happen. Numerical chances of this happening are astronomical.

I have experience of belly crawling through mud and having a sidearm fill with mud in every little nook and cranny, even the bore. And the pistol was going grip first through the mud.

Again films can be edited to suit the tester's or filmer's needs.

[bigbore]

Originally posted by Wvladimire

Again films can be edited to suit the tester's or filmer's needs. [/B]

Thanks for the laugh

[Wvladimire]

No thank you for the belly laugh you gave me for showing your ignorance. I dropped a 1911 from waist height into a muddy field and guess what. When I pulled it out, there is no way I would fire it. Why you ask, because the barrel and bore were filled with mud.

So the testers video, is subject to skepticism.

Don't believe me, then try it yourself sometime, and tell me the barrel and bore didn't fill with mud.

[zach2430]

Originally Posted by Wvladimire

No thank you for the belly laugh you gave me for showing your ignorance. I dropped a 1911 from waist height into a muddy field and guess what. When I pulled it out, there is no way I would fire it. Why you ask, because the barrel and bore were filled with mud.

So the testers video, is subject to skepticism.

Don't believe me, then try it yourself sometime, and tell me the barrel and bore didn't fill with mud.

As a current LEO I can safely say you sound like an idiot. Why do people always brag about being a LEO and assuming they are experts in everything. It makes us all look like idiots. And where in your carreer did you become a physics expert?

[Wvladimire]

Dear Zach 2430,

When I first read your post I was angry. So I did not reply right away, so that I could make a logical and intelligent argument. In response to your reply, I believe that I am showing that I have common sense, as well as a brain, and that I am using it. I have tried to be nice, amicable, and polite on this forum. While you, without any basis or facts to support your arguement attack me and my credibility.

First point, anyone who has a degree in Criminal Justice has to take Physics to earn that degree. *At least in my state.* And that course is not an elective course, one has to take it, in order to get the degree.

Also anyone who has taken a basic hunter safety course, firearm safety course, and has attended a Police Academy should know that one of the first things they teach you if you drop your duty weapon, "unless it's a dire situation, and your life is endanger, do not just fire your weapon without first field stripping it, checking to see if the bore is clear, and clean it if possible before firing that weapon." That quote is from any of the three classes listed above.

Also to those of you who are die hard fans of this particular thread, and are fool hardy enough to believe everything you read without questioning it. I've attached a pic of a Remington 870 barrel that came into my shop two weeks ago. To make a long story short, a son and his father were out hunting, the son dropped his shotgun in the mud, picked it up and asked his father if it was okay to shoot. The father responded, yeah go ahead and shoot it, it'll be ok. The son complied, and what you see is what happens when a bore is clogged with just a little bit of mud.

The shotgun wasn't dropped out of an airplane, where it landed muzzle end first in the mud and buried itself up to the grip. No it was just dropped from waist height into a muddy field by accident. Proof that what the tester claims he did is up to scrutinization.

And Zack, you're a moron, who should not own any firearms what so ever. I believe that you are a danger to yourself and your fellow co-workers if you do not know this little bit of firearm safety. Do us, meaning all GOOD LEO's, a favor and take a firearm safety course before you shoot your mouth off again without any facts to support your argument.

[Major Danger]

Originally Posted by Wvladimire

Dear Zach 2430,

And Zack, you're a moron, who should not own any firearms what so ever. I believe that you are a danger to yourself and your fellow co-workers if you do not know this little bit of firearm safety. Do us, meaning all GOOD LEO's, a favor and take a firearm safety course before you shoot your mouth off again without any facts to support your argument.

Wow, and I thought my thread about my dislike of the Glock 36 was met with a rabbid frenzy of frothy-mouthed fanboys!

Godspeed.

[Wvladimire]

Dear Major Danger,

The quote from me regarding Zack, is not about my dislike for the Glock 21. I said what I did because Zack attacked my credibility without any facts to support his arguement. Just ruthless name calling, because I questioned the fact the tester who posted this thread, claimed with accompaning video, to have dropped his Glock 21 out of an airplane into a muddy field. Where his Glock landed muzzle end first and buried itself up to the grip in the mud. The tester then pulled his Glock out of the mud, jacked a round into the chamber, and fired it.

I have said that that part of the test is skeptical at best. For the simple fact that if the gun landed muzzle first in the field and buried itself up to the grip in mud. Then the gun would not have fired without blowing up in his hand, due to the fact that the barrel would be caked with mud. This simple fact that escapes everyone's attention, goes against the laws of Physics, and is a safety hazard that any basic firearm safety course will teach you. Zack as well as a few others seem to think it's not a safety concern. That is why I stated he take a basic safety course before he owns, shoots, or handles any firearm.

Also the only other thing I will say is this. To you die hard fans of this test, if you do not believe me, then I make the following suggestion:

Take your Glock into a muddy field. Shove your Glock muzzle end first into the mud up to the grip. Pull your Glock out of the mud and then try to work the slide back to chamber a round. If you can do that, and actually chamber a bullet, without the barrel being caked with mud, then please by all means go ahead and fire your weapon. I take no responsibility or liability on your actions with this. And when you write me back with your new hook and eye patch to tell me how your test reults ended, I will gladly say I told you so.

PS. I do not hate Glocks, they are a reliable firearm, however they do not fit my hand or taste. This is a personal matter not reflecting on how well or not well the firearm is made. I am only trying to point out that the test is flawed for several reasons. Please use your head people and be safe with your firearms.

[THEPOPE]

Wow, an "almost 40 year-old" , seemingly able to form a full sentence with common sense, resorting to name-calling, like "ignorant", and "moron", aimed at other posters here, including the O.P., .....priceless.

Please don't attack ,me, I'm simply pointing out an obviously deranged and charactor-flawed thread-killer.


I'm out

[Kadetklapp]

Yes the video shows him pick it up out of the mud and look down the barrel. What I find unbelievable and laughable is that the bore was not filled with mud, especially when it landed muzzle first. Despite all you hard core Glock fans, this does go against the laws of physics, and would be impossible to happen. Numerical chances of this happening are astronomical.

I have experience of belly crawling through mud and having a sidearm fill with mud in every little nook and cranny, even the bore. And the pistol was going grip first through the mud.

Again films can be edited to suit the tester's or filmer's needs.

I consider myself to be a reasonable man, such as when some guy with ten posts gets on a forum claiming to be retired LE, military, and a mud-crawler, I don't dispute this even though his own claims sound like complete BS, but because one can't prove his own employment status on the internet any better than he can, but I will make an observation:

I take an annual firearms course with one of the most renouned firearms instructors in the United States. Perhaps some of you have heard of him, Sheriff Ken Campbell. Mr. Campbell is not what I would call, a Glock fan. However he is an expert on the 1911 pistol. My last class with him someone mentioned this G21 torture test. He himself noted that it was indeed possible for the barrel to be unobstructed and even if there was a smallish amount of mud debris inside, it would be entirely possible to shoot the gun without a problem. He also allowed that the Glock would probably be able to handle this better than a 1911 simply because the tighter tolerances of most hi-dollar 1911s would become compromised.

I have dropped my Ruger 9mm directly into muddy water muzzle-down and upon field strip and inspection, there was NO blockage whatsoever in the bore itself.

Get a grip Captain America.

[Wvladimire]

You can think what you want Memorial9c1. Just as I could do the same with your course and instructor. But please, go ahead and test this theory yourself. Go into a muddy field and simulate what the tester did. Shove your gun muzzle first into the mud up to the grip. Pull it out and then proceed to try and chamber a round. If you can, with the barrel being caked with mud, then by all means go ahead and fire it. Then enjoy your new hook and eye patch.

Being a reasonable man, I have tested this claim over and over again with just a piece of pipe. And you know what, the pipe fills with mud EVERY time. Must be those unbreakable laws of gravity, physics, and common sense coming into play. You just can't escape them. Well maybe one can in their fantasies.

Don't believe me, then view pic I've attached, or try shoving a piece of pipe into mud, and then tell me every time you pull it out it's not filled with mud. This is an udisputable fact. No matter how often you try to blur the issue, dance around facts, or claim to have been instructed by proficient people.

[Wvladimire]

PS. Sorry if my facts ruin your fantasy of how great and indestructable the Glock is. But everything I have said, pointed out, and claimed is true for ANY firearm. Any sensible person would agree and acknowledge this. Or can over 200 years of written firearm history, care, and maintenance be wrong???

[Texas357]

Perhaps there are different types and consitancies of mud? Perhaps you should all put them back in your pants and make your own videos, if you think you could do a better job?

[chiefkc2002]

Originally Posted by CFII

This test is one of the main reasons I will never get rid of my G21. That and the fact I shoot it so damn well.

I agree after reading this I picked up a g21 sf

[2ndamd]

I do not know how this thread got off track.
OT Thanks for the tests. That is testament to what a fine peice of weaponery the Glock has turned out to be.
Thanks for sharing your results.

[cmp944]

I remember when someone posted a link to this torture test on AR15, its around the same time I started to get rather interested in Glocks.

[americanmadeGI]

This is the sole reason i decided to buy a glock.

[Wetterman]

bigbore
what's that guide rod assembly on your gun?

[brawnless]

For the Glock 21, what is the documented round count without parts replacement?

[GMAN40]

G21 my favorite GLOCK!

[Wetterman]

Originally Posted by Wetterman

bigbore
what's that guide rod assembly on your gun?

I guess Bigbore isn't reading these threads anymore...

[Maddcat1]

Im sold on the 21 although I like my 22C way better

[zachattack38]

this makes me proud to own and carry a glock

[Apocalypse_Now]

Originally Posted by Wetterman

I guess Bigbore isn't reading these threads anymore...

Maybe he's tired of omnipotent "gun experts" hassling him over his fun project that he shared with us

[Furyataurus]

I'd like to see a continuous firing test between Bigbore's G21 and an HK USP 45, not the compact but the direct competitor to the G21. Let's say 1000 rounds each as fast as they can shoot. Like Para did with their 1911.

[SW342]

G21 is hard to beat.....of coarse I love all the glock models. :-)