I've had 2 different answers to my question: Is the Gen 5 "Marksman" barrel's rifling polygonal or conventional? Anthony, from the Glock mothership says poly; other sources say conventional. Being a bullet caster and a Gen 3 model 30 owner, I'm just curious. Any info on this out there? (If this is already posted, I'm sorry).
Gen 5 Barrel Rifling
- Tags
- barrel gen 5 poly barrel
-
Glocktalk is a forum community dedicated to Glock enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Glock pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, and more!
CountryBoy66
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Joined
·
45 Posts
I've had 2 different answers to my question: Is the Gen 5 "Marksman" barrel's rifling polygonal or conventional? Anthony, from the Glock mothership says poly; other sources say conventional. Being a bullet caster and a Gen 3 model 30 owner, I'm just curious. Any info on this out there? (If this is already posted, I'm sorry).
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
I'd like to see someone do a cerrosafe casting and see what that looks like. Those are the best pictures I've seen so far but it's still hard to tell what's going on with the rifling. The G43 barrel looks like conventional rifling and with the picture of the G5 17 it's hard to tell.
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
The post-Gen4 rifling is accurately described as a hybrid of polygonal with land/groove transition from one radial polygonal section to the next.
I have yet to see anything other than Glock marketing and off-the-cuff user claims that allows any credence for accuracy improvements.
I have yet to see anything other than Glock marketing and off-the-cuff user claims that allows any credence for accuracy improvements.
Joined
·
36 Posts
It is a horsesh** marketing ploy to sell a barrel requested by the FBI that is easier to match bullets to in a crime. There is ZERO advantage or improvement in accuracy to these barrels at all! They are actually a step backwards, because you lose some gas seal and velocity. Glock cut two grooves into their GOOD polygonal barrels for the FBI. Whoopty crap, THEY SUCK! That's it in a nutshell!
Joined
·
36 Posts
It
It is an old polygonal Glock barrel that has had two rifling grooves cut into the polygonal rifling with a button a hook or a broach to leave tool marks in the barrel. That's all it is, and it sucks ___. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it runs drive it. If moves shoot it. If it doesn't , paint it.
Joined
·
2,365 Posts
Thats a bingo! Dont know about the accuracy claim but the other is spot on! Glock marketing spun the crap out of it.
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
I don't own a gen 5 but I've shot one, a 19x and it was seemingly more accurate than my G19 and I loved how it balanced in my hands and really like the lack of finger grooves, but hated the putrid coyote turd yellow color. I only shot it with factory ammo but I've heard that the barrels have shorter throats and are "Fussy" about feeding reloads.
If that's true, I don't think it's a good trade-off to take a Glock Gen 3 or 4 that will feed ANY kind of ammo and be reasonably accurate, and shorten the throat to increase accuracy at the expense of 100% reliability with any ammo.
If that's true, I don't think it's a good trade-off to take a Glock Gen 3 or 4 that will feed ANY kind of ammo and be reasonably accurate, and shorten the throat to increase accuracy at the expense of 100% reliability with any ammo.
Joined
·
17,863 Posts
I wouldn't worry too much about it, with only 2.75" of rifling.
Joined
·
1,328 Posts
That is why I ran my own test.
And here is a picture of some other results:
and for third witness, go to YouTube Ammosqared Channel and they have a GEN three versus GEN five. Here’s a Picture of a compilation of their results that I did:
and I provided a link to one of the tests. There’s a bunch of them but this will get you the right neighborhood.
as much as I hate it, it does appear that the GEN five barrel is more accurate.
Joined
·
17,863 Posts
Yup. Glock isn't going to make a newer barrel WORSE than what they've got out there already. They know people are going to extensively test it, and they're not going to cut their own throats or endanger their bottom line.
More to the original question,I think- I have shot cast bullets for decades in glocks from gen 2 forward without problems, a standard typical bullet alloy ( not some super secret hard cast) usually whatever commercial mass produced cast bullet I find to buy and some home cast as well.
No major leading problems, and a few passes of a dry brass brush and a few dry patches every 200 rounds or so ( and definitely prior to running jacketed bullets again) is all the attention they have ever needed
No major leading problems, and a few passes of a dry brass brush and a few dry patches every 200 rounds or so ( and definitely prior to running jacketed bullets again) is all the attention they have ever needed
Joined
·
17,257 Posts
Poor science begets poorer conclusions.
Strongly believing = bias.
Assume = Ass-U-me
Ultimately, the question is so what? If the barrel is functionally more or less accurate but it takes significant research and money to establish the difference in decimal points, and in the real world 90+% of shooters do not have good trigger control, proper grip, understanding of sights, or recoil control, does it matter?
Strongly believing = bias.
Assume = Ass-U-me
Ultimately, the question is so what? If the barrel is functionally more or less accurate but it takes significant research and money to establish the difference in decimal points, and in the real world 90+% of shooters do not have good trigger control, proper grip, understanding of sights, or recoil control, does it matter?
Joined
·
17,257 Posts
That is only 2 guns you have in your possession. N=1 of each model. Also the slide mechanics and the frame differences were not isolated out-- so the barrels, were not tested specifically.
Perhaps run 10 times again with different barrels, but the tester needs to be blind to which barrel they are testing and recording, and the barrel alone needs to be switched out , not the entire gun.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
