I have read through some threads on maritime cups but didn’t find one explaining what they are for those of us who don’t know. Better yet what is their function? I’m not even sure what a cup is on a Glock as I’ve never detail stripped my gun just field strip for cleaning.
What Are Maritime Cups and What Do they Do?
2 reading
-
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!
SCCWP
61 - 74 of 74 Posts
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
The "maritime" firing pin spring cups may serve you well, if you expect your Glock to be submerged in water and fire it under water or at least with full of water inside the firing pin channel. However if you are not really expecting any such situations, I believe the standard firing pin spring cups should work just fine.
I have tried (what I believe to be) Glock OEM maritime cups in my G43 (but in no other models), kept them in the gun for a while and had a few courses and practiced weekly (but never fired the gun under water of even submerged it in water before firing it). While I had the maritime cups in the gun, I fired more than 13k rounds until the cups eventually “failed.” (See my posts in this old thread: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/who-uses-marine-spring-cups.1520099/page-5 )
Note that the G43 (as well as G42, G43X and 48) does not take the polymer “channel liner” that larger Glocks have. So, my maritime cups were moving inside the bare steel firing pin channel, instead of a polymer channel liner. That may have something to do with the eventual failure of my maritime cups... Nonetheless, they worked fine for at least 13k rounds of live fire and many dry-fires. I do NOT consider the result as their "pre-mature failure". I actually think they worked well for that many rounds. Had used them in my larger Glock pistol that has the polymer channel liner, they might have lasted even longer....
Now, some people claim that the maritime cups will help reduce the friction that the firing pin experiences inside the firing pin channel due to the smaller surface contacting area of the maritime cups compared to the regular cups. If you assume the "friction" between the cups and the firing pin channel liner to be a simple function of the cups' surface contact area touching the inside the firing pin channel liner (or the bare steel wall of the firing pin channel, in case of the Slimline models) given the stock firing pin and spring, "theoretically" such an argument makes some sense.....
Even so, in the overall scheme of things the effect of (theoretically predicted) difference in the "friction" inside the firing pin channel (directly attributable to the difference in the size of surface area of the "maritime" cups vs. the "standard" cups) as an independent variable would be "empirically" so small and insignificant on the "smoothness of trigger pull" as the dependent variable. I just do not believe such a small (theoretically predicted) difference in "friction" inside the firing pin channel would actually be perceivable by the normal kinetic sense of a human operator as s/he pulls the trigger, especially in an extremely stressful self-defense situation.
As a matter of fact, while I was using the maritime cups in my G43, I personally did not notice any improvement with regard to the trigger pull weight or "felt smoothness" directly and specifically attributable to the use of maritime cups inside. Even during my peaceful indoor range tests under no stress and when I focused on my kinetic sense trying to detect any improvement in terms of the smoothness of the trigger pull, I could not detect any... So, there was no need for me to even think of the great wisdom of @cciman and suspect the placebo effect possibly affecting my perception, either.
[Note. Others’ experiences using the maritime cups in larger Glocks may be different as mine as larger Glocks have the polymer firing pin channel liner inside.]
I have tried (what I believe to be) Glock OEM maritime cups in my G43 (but in no other models), kept them in the gun for a while and had a few courses and practiced weekly (but never fired the gun under water of even submerged it in water before firing it). While I had the maritime cups in the gun, I fired more than 13k rounds until the cups eventually “failed.” (See my posts in this old thread: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/who-uses-marine-spring-cups.1520099/page-5 )
Note that the G43 (as well as G42, G43X and 48) does not take the polymer “channel liner” that larger Glocks have. So, my maritime cups were moving inside the bare steel firing pin channel, instead of a polymer channel liner. That may have something to do with the eventual failure of my maritime cups... Nonetheless, they worked fine for at least 13k rounds of live fire and many dry-fires. I do NOT consider the result as their "pre-mature failure". I actually think they worked well for that many rounds. Had used them in my larger Glock pistol that has the polymer channel liner, they might have lasted even longer....
Now, some people claim that the maritime cups will help reduce the friction that the firing pin experiences inside the firing pin channel due to the smaller surface contacting area of the maritime cups compared to the regular cups. If you assume the "friction" between the cups and the firing pin channel liner to be a simple function of the cups' surface contact area touching the inside the firing pin channel liner (or the bare steel wall of the firing pin channel, in case of the Slimline models) given the stock firing pin and spring, "theoretically" such an argument makes some sense.....
Even so, in the overall scheme of things the effect of (theoretically predicted) difference in the "friction" inside the firing pin channel (directly attributable to the difference in the size of surface area of the "maritime" cups vs. the "standard" cups) as an independent variable would be "empirically" so small and insignificant on the "smoothness of trigger pull" as the dependent variable. I just do not believe such a small (theoretically predicted) difference in "friction" inside the firing pin channel would actually be perceivable by the normal kinetic sense of a human operator as s/he pulls the trigger, especially in an extremely stressful self-defense situation.
As a matter of fact, while I was using the maritime cups in my G43, I personally did not notice any improvement with regard to the trigger pull weight or "felt smoothness" directly and specifically attributable to the use of maritime cups inside. Even during my peaceful indoor range tests under no stress and when I focused on my kinetic sense trying to detect any improvement in terms of the smoothness of the trigger pull, I could not detect any... So, there was no need for me to even think of the great wisdom of @cciman and suspect the placebo effect possibly affecting my perception, either.
[Note. Others’ experiences using the maritime cups in larger Glocks may be different as mine as larger Glocks have the polymer firing pin channel liner inside.]
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Only one Glock pistol with Maritime Spring Cups. Unless the Ms have them, but I don't see anything on that.
Joined
·
83 Posts
Perfect for hunting lionfish with snorkeling gear
Joined
·
17,581 Posts
Because I can and they're my guns.
A lanyard for what?
Assuming a proper duty holster, why would his pistol fall out of the holster just because he himself falls into water?
Joined
·
7,457 Posts
The Sasquatch hunt and zombie part is a keen area of focus for preppers and disaster preparedness!
Joined
·
7,457 Posts
While shooting under water has always been a game viewed in inches (or a few feet, at best), the videos were fun to watch. I had seen similar, but one took things in a new direction that was entertaining to see.
But the point of the maritime cups isn't just to fire under water. It is so that guns that find themselves in water can also fire reliably upon being fired after leaving the water. While rare, one can envision a conservation officer working on boats, police as part of underwater operations, Coast Guard folks, or others wanting a gun that drains quickly. I don't need it, but Glock didn't invent it and sell it because it DOESN'T work. They made it because some application somewhere might benefit from it.
But you are correct. Lots of what we discuss is lingering in the fringe of reality. Whether that is the odds of us ever needing to fire in self defense (negligible chance for nearly ALL civilians!), or needing to have a working gun when hunting alligators with our buddies and accidentally falling out of our swamp boat while trying to haul in our new source of boot material and needing to get Chompy the Alligator off our arm quickly.*
* While I HAVE contemplated shooting a Glock under water in my pool because I know the bullet will stop fast, I have not, and won't. I also live in Indiana, and far from lakes, I don't have a boat (nor a swamp boat... nor a swamp!), and we don't have any alligators... so the odds of me needing maritime cups are probably slightly less than me winning the PowerBall lottery and getting attacked by armed robbers on the same day!
Joined
·
7,757 Posts
Out of curiosity, I tried them.
The generic cups looked really wonky, these were genuine Glock.
They don't have the structure of the standard cup and I thought they were fiddly to install.
I got no discernible benefit having them in.
They are now in the parts bin.
The generic cups looked really wonky, these were genuine Glock.
They don't have the structure of the standard cup and I thought they were fiddly to install.
I got no discernible benefit having them in.
They are now in the parts bin.
Joined
·
6,222 Posts
I can only speak about what we were told in a Glock armorer's class when the topic came up.
The maritime spring cups only came about because the organization placing a large order wanted to be able to shoot underwater if necessary and the standard spring cups didn't allow the striker to move forward fast enough/forcefully enough when acting against water resistance. That organization used 9mm ammo.
Since the order was big enough to justify the expense, Glock designed spring cups with relief cuts to cut resistance through water and voila, the maritime spring cup was born.
If shooting underwater, only use FMJ (for obvious reasons) and Glock only ever officially tested shooting underwater with 9mm.
However, there's no such thing as a free lunch. There is at least potential for the maritime spring cups to make the pistol less reliable than it would be with standard spring cups because the maritime spring cups tend to wear faster than standard cups (same force exerted over a smaller contact area where the cups meet the liner) and the maritime cups won't "sweep" channel gunk/debris out of the way as well as the standard cups.
In summation, maritime spring cups are a specialty part for one specific application and are not desirable for general usage.
Anyway, that's what we were told.
The maritime spring cups only came about because the organization placing a large order wanted to be able to shoot underwater if necessary and the standard spring cups didn't allow the striker to move forward fast enough/forcefully enough when acting against water resistance. That organization used 9mm ammo.
Since the order was big enough to justify the expense, Glock designed spring cups with relief cuts to cut resistance through water and voila, the maritime spring cup was born.
If shooting underwater, only use FMJ (for obvious reasons) and Glock only ever officially tested shooting underwater with 9mm.
However, there's no such thing as a free lunch. There is at least potential for the maritime spring cups to make the pistol less reliable than it would be with standard spring cups because the maritime spring cups tend to wear faster than standard cups (same force exerted over a smaller contact area where the cups meet the liner) and the maritime cups won't "sweep" channel gunk/debris out of the way as well as the standard cups.
In summation, maritime spring cups are a specialty part for one specific application and are not desirable for general usage.
Anyway, that's what we were told.
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
Modern pistols should easily handle being dropped in water. They literally go through various real world tests during development, Glocks included, that involve water and other scenarios.
Being able to shoot underwater isn't even on my list of concerns.
Joined
·
7,457 Posts
They can handle being dunked in water. Or many (within certain parameters) being fired in water. As FamilyMan noted, the difference is how it lets water either bypass or drain for subsequent shots. Will the striker be free to move against any water that encroaches, or will it slow the striker too much and require more time or effort to drain for the next shot?
I am not advocating for the maritime cups (I don't own or need any), but the lion fish guy was able to shoot and re-shoot under water without issue. And if I fell into the water with an alligator and needed to shoot it (possibly more than once) would I want maritime cups on my Glock? Yep! Extremely unlikely scenario, but folks like special forces or marine-based teams might have situations where they would like something like this. I don't know. I am not a Navy Seal.
The closest I ever came to the water while working was when I chased two burglary suspects and they fled into the lake. I guess to try and swim to freedom. I wasn’t about to go in after them. I had a game warden on the way in a boat but they finally decided it was useless to try and swim away and came right back to me. Then there was the time I chased a guy through the woods and he went into a pretty deep and muddy creek to try and elude me. Again I didn’t go in after him I just stayed on the bank until he got tired and came out of the creek. So in any case I wouldn’t have ever needed the maritime cups because I wasn’t going into the water after someone.
61 - 74 of 74 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
