GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-19-2007, 18:39   #241
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Post uncalled for huh?

I realize I may be shattering a few people's dream of how indestructible their Glocks are but.

1) Pics and video can be edited to suit a person's need.

2) If the tester did what he says he did, buried the pistol in various media, and dropped it out of a plane and it buried itself up to the grip in mud, then how do you explain the barrel not being clogged up with the media he buried it in or mud?

ANSWER: You can't because it goes against the laws of physics. If try to do so then you show your ignorance, because you cannot argue the law of mathmatics or physics. My post is warranted and called for to those who have a brain and use it.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 18:44   #242
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Another point

Also in any firearm safety manual, it states,"that if you drop your firearm especially in mud, to check and make sure the barrel is not clogged because it poses a threat to the safety of the user and bystanders if fired."

I've been around firearms long enough to know that if you drop your hunting rifle in the mud, you strip it and clean it before you fire it. Unless you want it to blow up in your face????
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 08:34   #243
Littleman
Texas
 
Littleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,004
Send a message via AIM to Littleman
Re: Post uncalled for huh?

Quote:
Originally posted by Wvladimire
I realize I may be shattering a few people's dream of how indestructible their Glocks are but.

1) Pics and video can be edited to suit a person's need.

2) If the tester did what he says he did, buried the pistol in various media, and dropped it out of a plane and it buried itself up to the grip in mud, then how do you explain the barrel not being clogged up with the media he buried it in or mud?

ANSWER: You can't because it goes against the laws of physics. If try to do so then you show your ignorance, because you cannot argue the law of mathmatics or physics. My post is warranted and called for to those who have a brain and use it.
ever seen mythbusters?

they tested the "mud in the barrel" myth. the gun fired fine.(and it was a long rifle)
__________________
Thin to win - G36 Club #78

:snoopy:
Littleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 08:58   #244
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Reply

Yes I saw the Myth Busters episode, and just about everyone where they test firearms. Did you happen to see in the same episode where they made the barrel explode by blocking the bore????

It is a safety hazard. No questions about it. Also this tester dropped his Glock out of an airplane where it buried itself up to the grip in a muddy field. And you are telling me he just pulled it out of the mud and fired it???? Right, pull my other leg it plays jingle bells. Physics states that the bore and barrel would have been filled with mud. Chambering a round and firing it is not the safest thing to do. Unless you are in an extreme dire situation. I know I have hit a touchy subject here. But blocking the bore on a firearm is a safety hazard period. You run the risk of a backfire, with serious injury and or death.

This is not a myth. For those of you who want to argue it, then I suggest you take a firearms safety course. Every firearm manufacturer, the military, the police, and even hunting classes teach you this. They even used to show films back in the old days of what would happen when the bore of a firearm is clogged. I've seen it first hand at the range in training, after a belly crawl in the mud for 50 yards or so before you reach the line to fire. The gun does explode. End of discussion, end of arguement, period. This test is flawed. The results were done in such a way to make the Glock seem indestructible and able to fire no matter what. Even when the results go against the laws of physics and safety.

And if you are a true believer in this test, then I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE FIELD HUNTING OR NEXT TO YOU AT THE RANGE. You are an ovious buffon who has no regard for your own safety or that of others.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 20:48   #245
ScotB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: VA
Posts: 14
Perhaps you should read the entire post before making an assumption. He states that he makes sure the barrel is clear of obstructions prior to firing the pistol when asked that very question by another member. Just a thought.
ScotB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 06:30   #246
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Assumptions

Now we are picking apart words to reply to my post.

In answer to your question, yes I did read the entire post. However I will point out an inconsistancy with his answer and I quote, "the only cleaning that was performed was dunking it in a bucket of water." This would not clear the barrel of an obstruction. There are several more inconsistancies in his story, for those who are adapt enough to catch them.

Sorry folks but results are exagerrated.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 08:48   #247
ScotB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: VA
Posts: 14
He stated he visually checked the barrel. Perhaps you were there and this allows you to question the results. Other than claiming there would have been a barrel obstruction which I feel was already addressed, you give no facts to support your conclusion.

On page 5 of this post Herbststurm asked about bore obstructions and I pasted it with bigbores answer below. If you just don't want to believe it I guess you can call him a liar and move on.

quote:Originally posted by Herbststurm(D)
Bigbore,
i wonder why the barrel didnt explode with all the dirt in it. I heard of incidents where even smaller objects in the barrel like cleaning wipes etc. where the cause for the barrel go bang, when the bullet did hit the object.
Did you plug the barrel with something (cellophane, wax etc.) before sticking it in the mud?



I always made a visual check that the bore was clear.
ScotB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 09:29   #248
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
No facts

No you are incorrect. The facts are the LAWS OF PHYSICS. You cannot go against the laws of physics, because the laws of physics govern the universe. If the tester dropped his Glock out of an airplane into a muddy field where it buried itself up to the grip in mud. Mind you the muzzle end landed first, meaning point down, then the barrel would have to be obstructed with mud. He claims he just pulled it out of the mud and fired it. No checking the bore. This goes against the laws of physics and gravity, because the barrel/bore would have filled with mud. Don't try to argue this because you think your Glock is indestructible. And if this is true and your glock does go against the laws of physics, which is totally impossible, then it would not fire. Due to the fact that everything in the universe has gone caput.

Simple fact of life, you cannot argue the laws of mathematics.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 10:48   #249
Proc
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ,Al
Posts: 84
Re: No facts

Quote:
Originally posted by Wvladimire
No you are incorrect. The facts are the LAWS OF PHYSICS. You cannot go against the laws of physics, because the laws of physics govern the universe. If the tester dropped his Glock out of an airplane into a muddy field where it buried itself up to the grip in mud. Mind you the muzzle end landed first, meaning point down, then the barrel would have to be obstructed with mud. He claims he just pulled it out of the mud and fired it. No checking the bore. This goes against the laws of physics and gravity, because the barrel/bore would have filled with mud. Don't try to argue this because you think your Glock is indestructible. And if this is true and your glock does go against the laws of physics, which is totally impossible, then it would not fire. Due to the fact that everything in the universe has gone caput.

Simple fact of life, you cannot argue the laws of mathematics.
Sir that is where you are incorrect there are breaks within the system.. A bumble bee's weight far exceeds its wingspan there fore by the laws of physics and mathematics it can't fly. Though I relish watching my children stare as the bumble bees FLY past to light upon a flower. The video clip shows him shake the pistol and look down the barrel. As to the certainty of the tests no one can attest to the validity of them completely. It is left up to the reader to draw his own conclusion, but then i suppose that violates your sense of fair play and perhaps breaks some laws of physics. You can state the laws themselves in condition are irrefutable true but the probability of all things is in question. If you were not there how can you swear that the pistol landed muzzle first.

Last edited by Proc; 10-05-2007 at 10:56..
Proc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 13:13   #250
Texas357
CLM Number 224
Señor Member
 
Texas357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CCTX
Posts: 10,042
Re: Re: No facts

Quote:
Originally posted by Proc
... A bumble bee's weight far exceeds its wingspan there fore by the laws of physics and mathematics it can't fly.
What units are you using, to compare weight and length? Any conclusion that finds bees unable to fly must surely be based on some really awful assumptions. Perhaps you mean to compare ratios?
If so, you are trying to apply ratios derived from stiff-wing flight, to bumble-bees, who don't use stiff-wing flight? Either way, it would be laughable, except for the fact you take it seriously.
Quote:
Though I relish watching my children stare as the bumble bees FLY past to light upon a flower. The video clip shows him shake the pistol and look down the barrel. As to the certainty of the tests no one can attest to the validity of them completely. It is left up to the reader to draw his own conclusion, but then i suppose that violates your sense of fair play and perhaps breaks some laws of physics. You can state the laws themselves in condition are irrefutable true but the probability of all things is in question. If you were not there how can you swear that the pistol landed muzzle first.
Wow, y'all are arguing about some petty BS. Nevermind. Ignore my intrusion. If you are going to equate Original Post grammar with Laws of Physics, this thread isn't worth saving.
__________________
"The more ignorant the individual, the more credulous he becomes, and the more prone to believe in the fearful and satanic nature of the many things that pass his comprehension." - Charles W. Olliver


"I nominate you for President of Texas!" - Dr. Octagon
"I accept your nomination, and thank you for your vote."- Texas357
Texas357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 21:07   #251
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
physics

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.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 17:32   #252
bigbore
Senior Member
 
bigbore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 357
Re: physics

Quote:
Originally posted by Wvladimire

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
bigbore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 18:07   #253
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Thanks for laugh

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.
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 12:08   #254
zach2430
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sandusky Ohio
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wvladimire View Post
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?
zach2430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 10:39   #255
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Leo

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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Barrel blowout.jpg (397.1 KB, 568 views)

Last edited by Wvladimire; 10-22-2007 at 10:42.. Reason: typo
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 10:44   #256
Major Danger
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wvladimire View Post
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.
Major Danger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 23:31   #257
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Go ahead and test it yourself

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.

Last edited by Wvladimire; 10-23-2007 at 23:36.. Reason: typos
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 21:39   #258
THEPOPE
Nibb
 
THEPOPE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 6,327
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
__________________
Kiss the Ring, naves, for I am now Karol Wystalia, aka, SAINT Pope John Paul II....

the Pope with most....Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
THEPOPE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2007, 11:18   #259
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Kadetklapp; 10-26-2007 at 11:42..
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2007, 19:54   #260
Wvladimire
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH.
Posts: 47
Torture test

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.

Last edited by Wvladimire; 10-26-2007 at 20:00.. Reason: Forgot a point
Wvladimire is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 935
204 Members
731 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42