Upgraded Carry Glock

[JS88]

Hello All,
New to the site so my apologies if this is a silly question.
Primary carry is a G27. Strong side, Crossbreed IWB.
I am very comfortable with this handgun and find it to be manageable and accurate. I have made a few changes.
Storm Lake ported barrel, steel guide rod, heavier recoil springs and 3.5lb connector. While I was pretty happy with the pistol before, it is so much more controllable now. Love the trigger (no over-travel, easy reset). It has literally had thousands of rounds through it with no malfunctions.
My question is, is it unwise to use this pistol Daily Carry? and if so why? It seems there is an opinion that in the unlikely event lethal force is necessary, there could be additional legal issues.

Please share feedback.

Thanks

[F-Trooper05]

Sign up for a low light pistol class and you'll likely get rid of that ported barrel after the first string of fire. As for the guide rod and recoil spring, are they really bringing anything to the table that the OEM parts aren't? Just something to think about.

[Byron]

In my experience, ported barrels also tend to be quite miserable when practicing retention shooting.

[Nephrology]

ditch the guide rod and teh ported barrel.

The guide rod is not helping you whatsoever and is just introducing another potential point of failure on the gun.

[Cosmo M3]

All you need are night sights

Get rid of everything else

[farscott]

I actually like and will carry ported .357 Magnum revolvers, especially those using the Hybra-Port process developed by Jack Weigand, In my experience going back to 1995, those revolvers offer no more muzzle flash than unported guns of the same model in low-light conditions and can be shot from retention with no issues with JHP ammo. The ported models allow much faster splits and lower shooter fatigue.

As such, I would recommend experimenting with the ported G27 barrel as .40 S&W is not .357 Magnum and an autoloader is not a revolver. 9x19 ammo today offers performance very close to .357 Magnum without the need for porting, lessening the need for ported revolvers. That being said, I expect to find no issues with the porting if quality ammo is used.

[WDW]

Anytime you replace critical OEM parts with snazzy looking after market stuff, you are asking your gun to fail. It may or may not, but it probably will at some point. Put all the original stuff back it in it. If your fate after a shooting is decided upon the barrel or other legal parts in your gun, God hates you!

[JeffJ]

Legally (IANAL) but if the shoot is squeeky clean it doesn't matter - if there is a gray area and blood sucking lawyers get involved it's information that they can use to muddy the waters. Especially if there is no clear articulate reason for adding those extras.

Personally, I don't know what they are doing for you and wouldn't have spent the money on aftermarket barrells and guide rods on a CCW piece - but that's just me.

As far as carry goes, legally you're probably fine and if you feel that the function of the firearm isn't compromised by the addition of aftermarket parts -- Go for it, G27 is a good, popular choice for CCW, you could do a lot worse.

[Chris Rhines]

Anytime you replace critical OEM parts with snazzy looking after market stuff, you are asking your gun to fail. It may or may not, but it probably will at some point. Put all the original stuff back it in it. I hear this a lot. It's not necessarily correct, and constant repetition doesn't make it any more so. There are plenty of parts that you can replace that will improve the reliability of your gun, and even more than will be neutral on reliability. The tough part is knowing the difference.

Now, as to your particular modifications, the only one I would keep is the 3.5# connector. Storm Lake makes quality barrels, but porting is not helping you any on a carry gun. Pistol compensators need to have baffle plates to be effective; the barrel porting is only making pretty patterns in your muzzle flash. I normally respring full-size or semi-compact Gen2/Gen3 Glocks, but with lighter springs. Glocks are generally oversprung from the factory, and your heavier recoil spring is likely increasing the felt recoil in your gun. The steel guide rod is a wash. I've seen factory Glock guide rods break, but I've seen some of the steel ones come apart, too. I'd put one in if it was properly dimensioned and if I were playing with recoil spring rates, otherwise I'd leave it.

I didn't see anything in your inital post about aftermarket sights, which are the one thing of clear, unambiguous benefit to a stock Glock.

-C

[JS88]

First off, I appreciate the feedback. Thought I should clarify a few things though.

Forgot to mention Tritium sights as well.

My intent with the upgrades was to improve the handling and speed without giving up the reliability.

Better trigger/reset, reducing muzzle flip for quicker accurate follow-up shots.

They say the best gun for ccw is the one you have on you, following that logic I went with a small Glock.

Love this pistol but let's face it, it doesn't handle like a G22.

When I practice with mine, side by side with my buddy's bone stock G27, there is a marked difference in felt recoil and trigger break. Much faster follow-up shots.

At least in my little mind, overall performance/dependability has been improved. Confidence is a good thing in high-stress situation.

Had not considered, low-light and retention scenarios, but will now.

Have yet to take all of the classes that I want to.

Thanks to all.

[WDW]

I hear this a lot. It's not necessarily correct, and constant repetition doesn't make it any more so. There are plenty of parts that you can replace that will improve the reliability of your gun, and even more than will be neutral on reliability. The tough part is knowing the difference.

Now, as to your particular modifications, the only one I would keep is the 3.5# connector. Storm Lake makes quality barrels, but porting is not helping you any on a carry gun. Pistol compensators need to have baffle plates to be effective; the barrel porting is only making pretty patterns in your muzzle flash. I normally respring full-size or semi-compact Gen2/Gen3 Glocks, but with lighter springs. Glocks are generally oversprung from the factory, and your heavier recoil spring is likely increasing the felt recoil in your gun. The steel guide rod is a wash. I've seen factory Glock guide rods break, but I've seen some of the steel ones come apart, too. I'd put one in if it was properly dimensioned and if I were playing with recoil spring rates, otherwise I'd leave it.

I didn't see anything in your inital post about aftermarket sights, which are the one thing of clear, unambiguous benefit to a stock Glock.

-C

So you think stripping a reputable pistol of its OEM parts and replacing them with a bunch of aftermarket stuff is a good idea for a defensive handgun?

[Chris Rhines]

So you think stripping a reputable pistol of its OEM parts and replacing them with a bunch of aftermarket stuff is a good idea for a defensive handgun? Yes, it can be a very good idea. Or it can be a horrible idea. It depends on the parts you replace, and the aftermarket parts you replace them with.

-C

[Savage Hands]

So you think stripping a reputable pistol of its OEM parts and replacing them with a bunch of aftermarket stuff is a good idea for a defensive handgun?


Absolutely! Of course it depends on each individual case. For example, if you think the OEM case hardened MIM parts in the M&P that were dropped in the gun is better than the Tool Steel through hardened parts fitted by a gunsmith/engineer to my gun than I don't know what to tell you. Will the stock part last a lifetime? Probably Will the Apex parts I'm describing? Probably as well.

[Chuck Haggard]

I have to very respectfully disagree, and rather strongly, that Glocks are oversprung. Especially in the case of Glock .40s


As far as aftermarket parts, I think you are GTG as long as they aren't retarded parts (titanium firing pins in the Glocks as an example) or go overboard and create the dreaded "hairtrigger" that Mas Ayoob has talked about in the past.

I have a basically stock G17 and G19 that I carry daily, but the grip tape, Grip Force Adapter and Ameriglo sights are all obviously not OEM. My S&W 642s all have CT laser grips on them.

[David Armstrong]

Put me in the camp that says OEM is the way to go unless you can show some good reason to replace the part with an after-market. Improved sighting systems are always good, IMO. Aftermarket triggers and barrels? Not so good, IMO.

[Savage Hands]

Put me in the camp that says OEM is the way to go unless you can show some good reason to replace the part with an after-market. Improved sighting systems are always good, IMO. Aftermarket triggers and barrels? Not so good, IMO.

Why?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Legally (IANAL) but if the shoot is squeeky clean it doesn't matter - if there is a gray area and blood sucking lawyers get involved it's information that they can use to muddy the waters. Especially if there is no clear articulate reason for adding those extras.

Personally, I don't know what they are doing for you and wouldn't have spent the money on aftermarket barrells and guide rods on a CCW piece - but that's just me.

As far as carry goes, legally you're probably fine and if you feel that the function of the firearm isn't compromised by the addition of aftermarket parts -- Go for it, G27 is a good, popular choice for CCW, you could do a lot worse.

Modifications to firearms impact 2 areas:

1) Negligence - You did something that a reasonable person would not do, and have therefore created a firearm with an increased risk of an inintended discharge. Self defense is a willfull act, and you cannot have a "fortunate accident" in which the right person got shot accidentally...but it's all good.

Lightening triggers below what the manufacturer recomends opens you up to the allegation of negligence under the theory of "Careless in some, careless in all".

2) The WTF Factor - Your shooting will be looked at and reviewed by people who may not be all that happy with the fact you were carrying a gun...or by people who would be delighted you were carrying the gun, well trained and have closed the file on "G-Money" or "T"...but they aren't familiar with modifications or so forth any more than they are with firearms.

Yes, the prosecutor may be happy you did your business...but realize, guns and ammo for him really stopped with the M-16 qualification last time he did it with the National Guard, his M-9 (carried on safe, condition 3) or his old duty gun...a S&W M-19.

You start going beyond that, add a younger thug, a shot as he was turning, a cross racial shooting and you end up with someone starting to look at what you were carrying as "I'm just not comfortable with this case as self defense..."

Rarely do you see a prosecution in a "clear cut" case. That's because they are "clear cut"

Often you see the shooter "Who did NOTHING wrong!!!:mad:" creating a confused situation for himself by statements, gear, actions ectra...leaving the prosecutor nothing else but to say "Dam it, I just don't know what happened...I guess if they aren't going to plead, I'll try the case and see what happens."

[JonInWA]

Your modifications sound to me like you're trying to get a G27 to perform like a G19 or a G17. Frankly, I'd just get a G19 and call it good.

You've created a nice range gun, but in my opinion a very questionable carry piece. As others have mentioned, with your changes you've self-opened the "intent" Pandora's box if you were called to account for a defensive shooting. You're also running it with a lighter trigger pull since I assume you're running a OEM coil trigger spring with your 3.5 conector. If you like the 3.5/4.5 connector, fine-but I'd strongly suggest running it with a NY1 trigger spring, which will give you a heavier triggerpull, but a continuous, crisp trigger pull from inception to break.

The only reason that I can see to go with a Storm Lake (or, for that matter, virtually any other aftermarket barrel in a Glock) is if you're going to be shooting lead bullets-which I suspect you're highly unlikely to use for a defensive cartridge.

Regarding your choice of a steel guide rod, I think you're in the realm of negligable benefits-especially in a G27. Ditto with the aftermarket recoil spring. Look, I'm not saying that Glocks can't be tuned-but I really don't think that it's necessary, or desirable for a defensive/carry Glock G27.

My suggestions? A decent set of steel sights, perhaps a Glock extended slide stop/release, perhaps a smooth trigger/triggerbar, and a NY1 triggerspring to go with your (hopefully OEM) 3.5/4.5 connector. Stick with the stock barrel, and the stock recoil spring assembly-if you hadn't already blown the money, I would have said that it would likely to have been far more productively spent on ammunition/practice/training/competition.

Or-keep the gun as it is for a range toy, and just get a G19 for carry.

Best, Jon

[High Country]

So what happens if I have to shoot someone with a G34? How come it seems generally acceptable to install Apex kits in M&P's but everything in a Glock needs to be Glock?

This whole scenario has a ton of potential possibilities. A prosecutor who wants to go after you is going to use anything he can to get you. I will use myself as an example. Here are some things that a prosecutor could use against me if I ever was involved in a self defense shooting:

The guy is a gun nut, he owns over 30 firearms.

He has taken training to kill using guns!

He has aftermarket parts in his firearms!

He is violent because he has had roughing penalties in hockey!

The list goes on and on. My point is that a prosecutor who wants to go after you can, even if you are a saint. Keep the modifications to your carry weapon logical and reasonable, and hopefully you will never need to defend them. Just my opinion.

Shane

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So what happens if I have to shoot someone with a G34? How come it seems generally acceptable to install Apex kits in M&P's but everything in a Glock needs to be Glock?


Everything in a glock does not need to be glock.

Everything in a gun needs to be reasonable.

From my understanding, the Apex kit doesn't make the trigger lighter, it makes it "Better" in that it has a more firm reset and better character for the break.

It has accuracy enhancing characteristics, but doesn't do so in a way that makes it more prone to negligent discharges.

[Savage Hands]

Everything in a glock does not need to be glock.

Everything in a gun needs to be reasonable.

From my understanding, the Apex kit doesn't make the trigger lighter, it makes it "Better" in that it has a more firm reset and better character for the break.

It has accuracy enhancing characteristics, but doesn't do so in a way that makes it more prone to negligent discharges.


Doc Roberts will probably comment on this as well, but Apex's DCAEK and RAM are approved for over a dozen agencies.

[Pistolero]

Sign up for a low light pistol class and you'll likely get rid of that ported barrel after the first string of fire. As for the guide rod and recoil spring, are they really bringing anything to the table that the OEM parts aren't? Just something to think about.

Gee, I wish someone had pointed this out to me, say, 30 years ago; and to think that I've wasted all this time with a half-dozen muzzle-ported barrels that I've fired at all hours of the day and night, too. You know, if I didn't spend time on internet gun forums I might never have found out all the things I've been doing wrong - Wow!

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2788/glockg216.jpg

(Just something I dumped another $1,300 dollars on - Another piece of muzzle-ported junk that produces fantastic split times (Even inside darkened rooms!)

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Reasonable is a reflection of the "community standards" in a given activity.

At one time, it was commonly accepted to use home loaded ammo for duty/defense. Now, it is not.

Massad Ayoob mentioned in "In the Gravest Extreme" that shooting at people shaped targets was considered extreme and that non-le use bulls-eye targets to avoid the impression they were training to kill...now, it is your duty to train realistically, using targets that are anatomically correct reflecting the location of the brain, spine and heart.

Way back when training to do a double-tap, then a head shot was training to murder people!
Now, it's a commonly accepted drill that if you aren't at least conversent with, your training is looked at like it is...eh..."You are more of a target shooter, aren't you? I mean, you aren't REALLY training for defense, are you?"

In Paul Weston's Combat Shooting for Police it talks a lot about using the single action mode of a DA-SA revolver...and these days, the mantra is to master the DA stroke and forget about the SA.

Standards evolve, therefore reasonable changes with the times.

[F-Trooper05]

Gee, I wish someone had pointed this out to me, say, 30 years ago; and to think that I've wasted all this time with a half-dozen muzzle-ported barrels that I've fired at all hours of the day and night, too. You know, if I didn't spend time on internet gun forums I might never have found out all the things I've been doing wrong - Wow!

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2788/glockg216.jpg

(Just something I dumped another $1,300 dollars on - Another piece of muzzle-ported junk that produces fantastic split times (Even inside darkened rooms!)

If it works for you, drive on. However, I can't think of a single military unit, SWAT team, or big name pistol instructor that uses them.

[Pistolero]

....... My question is, is it unwise to use this pistol Daily Carry? and if so why? It seems there is an opinion that in the unlikely event lethal force is necessary, there could be additional legal issues. Please share feedback. Thanks

Hello! Quite honestly I think you've been reading too much Ayoob. Even with that 4.5# connector in place (That's right; the authentic weight of an advertised, '3.5#' Glock connector is actually 4.5#'s; AND, 4.5#'s is not too light a trigger by any valid historical standard. Besides trigger pull weight in a Glock is always taken as a cumulative amount; and, in your pistol I'm positive that it's going to be over 5#'s. Therefore I think you can stop worrying.

My EDC is set up in a very similar fashion to your own; only I, also, use an extra heavy 6# trigger spring which takes it down by another 2/10's #, or so. The other thing you should be aware of is that trigger pull weights are always expressed as a range of numbers. Even when the measurements are taken from the same location on the trigger, any series of 3 measurements will only rarely produce identical numbers. For instance on my own Glock - which has been repeatedly checked - the trigger measures consistently from 4.9 to 5.2#'s. (In anybody's book that's a 5# trigger; and I'll bet your Glock trigger is, at least, the same cumulative pull weight.

If this continues to concern you, find a gunsmith with a Lyman electronic trigger pull gauge and get your trigger pull measured for you by a professional. Personally, I'll bet you're more than good-to-go.

[JonInWA]

So what happens if I have to shoot someone with a G34? How come it seems generally acceptable to install Apex kits in M&P's but everything in a Glock needs to be Glock?

This whole scenario has a ton of potential possibilities. A prosecutor who wants to go after you is going to use anything he can to get you. I will use myself as an example. Here are some things that a prosecutor could use against me if I ever was involved in a self defense shooting:

The guy is a gun nut, he owns over 30 firearms.

He has taken training to kill using guns!

He has aftermarket parts in his firearms!

He is violent because he has had roughing penalties in hockey!

The list goes on and on. My point is that a prosecutor who wants to go after you can, even if you are a saint. Keep the modifications to your carry weapon logical and reasonable, and hopefully you will never need to defend them. Just my opinion.

Shane

I occassionally DO carry my G34-but I use the OEM "-" connector with a NY1 spring, which in my opinion provides both a superior triggerpull (single stage/consistant pull weight, more discernable reset point, AND a heavier pull weight than the OEM Glock "standard" connector/coil triggerspring set-up.

As others have pointed out, the issue is probably not going to devolve around "OEM-ness" per se-it'll more likely devolve around reasonableness. The base line criteria for "reasonableness" is probably going to start with a review of the manufacturer's specifications, components, and marketing, compared with the weapon as actually equipped and used. Sticking with the Glock G34 as the "analog" for discussion, if a G34 is to be used for carry I would suggest that a user take a hard look at prevailing LEO/qualified instructors'/manufacturers' guidance and use. I suspect that what you'll find is that LEO used/authorized G34/G35s will employ either a standard connector/coil trigger spring or a "minus" connector and the NY1 spring, as opposed to the more prevalent "minus" connector and coil trigger spring for the commercial market (where the G34 is more likely to be used as a pure competition gun).

In this instance, I see it as a win-win to go with an OEM "-" and NY1 combination-it results in a heavier, more resistant, constant triggerpull, and one with a heavier triggerpull weight than the "standard" setup.

Best, Jon

[Pistolero]

If it works for you, drive on. However, I can't think of a single military unit, SWAT team, or big name pistol instructor that uses them.

Cool! I'm an older gunman with a lot of years of experience. Over the course of my long life I've often found the police and military to lag behind, sometimes by as much as a decade, whatever technology the private (civilian) sector is using; e.g.: The pistol handling methods developed by Cooper and his associates at Big Bear Lake. A two-handed hold on a pistol should have come from someplace like the FBI, Quantico, or the Army Marksmanship Unit - BUT, it didn't!

Now this is just my opinion; but, personally, I consider gunmen who haven't, yet, learned how to use ported barrels correctly to be, 'techno-dinosaurs'. I guess we'll both have to wait and see who's right. (And, No! I've never set my clothes on fire while shooting from retention, either - OK.)

[WDW]

I don't care about the supposed influence aftermarket parts have on your legal status. I just think it is unwise to take a reputable, proven design & fill it will usually inferior aftermarket parts with regards to a carry gun. There are a few exceptions, but as a whole most aftermarket parts makers make a few parts that they percive will enhance a certain gun. They do not tae into account all the engineering aspects of the fireram or the design as a whole. I'm not saying you can't improve a gun in certain instances (APEX and the Vickers parts are examples), but most people buy shit and stick it in their gun (alot of times incorrectly) based solely on how shiny it is or because it says zombie on it.

[Savage Hands]

I don't care about the supposed influence aftermarket parts have on your legal status. I just think it is unwise to take a reputable, proven design & fill it will usually inferior aftermarket parts with regards to a carry gun. There are a few exceptions, but as a whole most aftermarket parts makers make a few parts that they percive will enhance a certain gun. They do not tae into account all the engineering aspects of the fireram or the design as a whole. I'm not saying you can't improve a gun in certain instances (APEX and the Vickers parts are examples), but most people buy shit and stick it in their gun (alot of times incorrectly) based solely on how shiny it is or because it says zombie on it.


The penny pinchers at gun manufacturers don't take into account all engineering aspects either...

I don't know if it's just me, but I don't this is the kind of forum where people don't stick junk in their gun... Many other forums maybe, but that's why I prefer being here.

[WDW]

The penny pinchers at gun manufacturers don't take into account all engineering aspects either...

I don't know if it's just me, but I don't this is the kind of forum where people don't stick junk in their gun... Many other forums maybe, but that's why I prefer being here.

This forum is open to everybody with internet access so I don't know what everybody else does and everytime this topic comes up, OEM is usually the overwhelming response. If your experience is different and you have had success with aftermarket stuff then that's great. But you have to admit that the MAJORITY of aftermarket stuff is complete crap. Again, I'm not saying all aftermarket parts are junk, but alot of them are and most people change stuff for the absolute wrong reason. I'm talking majority here, not the few exceptions that are floating around.

[Pistolero]

I don't care about the supposed influence aftermarket parts have on your legal status. I just think it is unwise to take a reputable, proven design & fill it will usually inferior aftermarket parts with regards to a carry gun. There are a few exceptions, but as a whole most aftermarket parts makers make a few parts that they percive will enhance a certain gun. They do not tae into account all the engineering aspects of the fireram or the design as a whole. I'm not saying you can't improve a gun in certain instances (APEX and the Vickers parts are examples), but most people buy shit and stick it in their gun (alot of times incorrectly) based solely on how shiny it is or because it says zombie on it.

Well, ....... it seems to me that Glock, GmbH has often used the (gullible) gun-buying American public to do a very great deal of their new product development and testing for them. About the last thing I would call many Glocks is a, 'reputable, proven design'. Besides, which generation or which model are we to use as a base for reference. I purchased one of my Glocks (a G-21) in 2003. Since that time my G-21 has received a newly designed trigger bar; and this 3rd generation model has, also, been reintroduced in, at least, two other versions. (The, 'SF' and, 'ambi')

When it comes to Glock pistols, I consider myself to be (1) a member of the gullible gun-buying American public, (2) a Glock product development tester, (3) something of a Glock engineer, (4) a reluctant Glock armorer, and (5) a parts replacement/modification specialist. I mean, let's face it, how could I have run one of Glock's most dangerous and imperfect models for almost 10 years UNLESS I'd learned to become all of these things!

The Glock I carry everyday has, something like $600 dollars' worth of aftermarket parts in it. To the best of my knowledge, and through a good 18,000 rounds, none of these parts have proven themselves to be junk. In fact, if I were going to a pistol gunfight, I'd rather use my radically modified, occasionally upgraded, 9 year old, 3rd generation G-21 than any brand new Gen4 Glock on the planet. (And THAT is the God's honest truth!)

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3842/glockmodel21161.jpg

[Byron]

If it works for you, drive on. However, I can't think of a single military unit, SWAT team, or big name pistol instructor that uses [ported barrels]

I'm an older gunman with a lot of years of experience. Over the course of my long life I've often found the police and military to lag behind, sometimes by as much as a decade, whatever technology the private (civilian) sector is using
...
Now this is just my opinion; but, personally, I consider gunmen who haven't, yet, learned how to use ported barrels correctly to be, 'techno-dinosaurs'. I guess we'll both have to wait and see who's right. (And, No! I've never set my clothes on fire while shooting from retention, either - OK.)
Pistolero,

While your point is valid that Mil/LEO/Civ sectors may find themselves in different stages of technology use, I fail to see much relevance to ported barrels. The fact is that ported barrels have been around for many, many decades; far longer than many other "new" technologies that currently enjoy mainstream acceptance. Two examples that immediately come to mind are red dot sights and lasers. For your position to hold -- that ports just haven't been discovered by the techno-dinosaurs -- would mean that said dinosaurs just mysteriously picked one technology to skip over, while adopting ones that came after it. If this was really just a resistance (or ignorance) of change, it doesn't seem like this would happen.

I do not have the same length of experience with ported barrels as you do, but my distaste does not come from second-hand reading of gun forums. I never found the muzzle flash to be as bad as people say, but I did find the extra concussive blast to be annoying, at best. No, I've never set anything on fire, but I've slammed my eyes shut more than once from the blast of hot gasses hitting me in the face while shooting from retention. Other times, my eyes stayed open, but I could feel the sting of unburnt powder and/or jacket fragments peppering my neck. After a few years, I purchased a regular barrel to replace the factory-ported barrel in my G17C. Was that experience representative of all the different types of ported barrels on the market? No; I'm sure some are better than others. Still, to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a dinosaur seems to miss the mark.

It's also worth noting that many of the "techno-dinosaurs" run brakes/ports/compensators on their long guns, but not on their pistols. Again, the age/technology argument just doesn't seem to hold water.

[farscott]

A couple more thoughts on porting:

1) Not all porting is created equal. I get much different results from Weigands' Hybra-Porting than I did from the S&W expansion chamber porting used on the F-Comp and K-Comp revolvers. Hybra-Porting does a much better job of taming muzzle rise than the S&W porting. Mag-Na-Port also provides different results. So do not toss all porting based on experience with only one type.

2) I have not tried the Glock C models because I find that recoil and muzzle jump is much less on a 9x19 autoloader than on a .357 Magnum revolver. Perhaps ported has not caught on for autoloaders because it does not make the difference in does in revolvers. The technology has not been ignored; it perhaps is not needed.

[JS88]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.
I am apparently about the only one here who is not an armorer. Enough doubt has been raised that I will run some tests again, against the timer. Old parts vs newer.
Pretty confident though, that my I'll be runnin' the current combination. Have been for the last 1000+ rds. When I press the trigger it goes bang every time, always. Holes appear where they should. Complete faith in the reliability.

Looking forward to trying the F.A.S.T. drill. Maybe I'll be eating crow. Maybe not.

Regards.

[Pistolero]

Pistolero,

While your point is valid that Mil/LEO/Civ. sectors may find themselves in different stages of technology use, I fail to see much relevance to ported barrels. The fact is that ported barrels have been around for many, many decades; far longer than many other "new" technologies that currently enjoy mainstream acceptance. Two examples that immediately come to mind are red dot sights and lasers.

For your position to hold - that ports just haven't been discovered by the techno-dinosaurs - would mean that said dinosaurs just mysteriously picked one technology to skip over, while adopting ones that came after it. If this was (SIC)(were) really just a resistance (or ignorance) of change, it doesn't seem like this would happen.

While I do not have the same length of experience with ported barrels as you do, but my distaste does not come from second-hand reading of gun forums. I never found the muzzle flash to be as bad as people say, but I did find the extra concussive blast to be annoying, at best.

Now, that’s an interesting reply - One that states, rather succinctly, the real nature of the misunderstanding. I’m going to suggest several things: First, there are a lot more ported barrels, out there, among the general public than I think most people realize. Second, when it comes to the military pistols are, (and always have been) ‘secondary weapons’. Third, if the military isn’t using it then law enforcement agencies, probably, aren’t going to be interested either.

Nevertheless, a large segment of the pistol shooting (and pistol hunting) public continues to use, and continues to rely upon, various ported pistol designs. The way I see things there are several different reasons, ‘Why’ there is so much popular misunderstanding about ported pistols. I’ll attempt to describe them:

1. Over the past decade, or two, almost every popular gun magazine has run articles, written by, ‘gunzine authors’ who had, only, limited experience with ported pistol barrels and, consequently, really didn’t know what they were supposed to be talking about. (Writers whom I would call, ‘techno-dinosaurs’!)

2. There has long been, and continues to be, a great deal of popular confusion over ported pistol barrels. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, only a small group of senior pistoleros who spend, or have spent, time posting on Glock Talk seem to be able to understand, and are consequently able to explain pistol barrel porting in, both, a cogent and reasonable fashion.

3. As both you and farscott have, rather shrewdly, noted: Several popular pistol manufacturers have marketed, or are presently marketing, ported pistol designs which I will agree perform in a less than ideal manner. Smith & Wesson’s older, strictly ported, pistols designs are one; and, yes, Glock’s ridiculous factory porting setup is another.

All of these things lead to what I, sometimes, believe is a plethora of outdated misconceptions about pistol barrel porting. So, where to begin? Einstein once said that, ‘All useful knowledge begins with an accurate definition of terms.’ Here we go!

1. Pistol Barrel Porting: This design may be generally divided into two basic types. One is strictly, ‘muzzle-porting’ of the type I use and have been referring to; and, the other is, ‘slide and barrel porting’ of the type that Glock, Inc. uses. Now, in my opinion, Glock has done an excellent job of setting pistol porting back by more than a quarter century because of coming out with their fakakta slide and barrel porting design. I am NOT the least bit surprised that a number of users have had trouble with it.

At the same time it seems ludicrous to me that any experienced pistol shooter would attribute more: muzzle blast, spatter, concussion, or noise to a properly muzzle-ported pistol barrel than to any of the popular short barreled semiautomatic or snub-nosed handgun design.

Personally, more than half the time, I only shoot muzzle-ported pistols; and I do a lot of pistol shooting. Do I notice any significant difference(s) between muzzle-ported and nonported pistols? Yeah, I do - About an 8 to 10% reduction in recoil and, at least, a corresponding increase in, both, front sight control and the speed at which I’m able to accurately fire.

2. Pistol Barrel Compensation: This is NOT the same thing as pistol barrel porting; but, in the popular mind, (and, apparently, in the Austrian mind as well) barrel compensation, and barrel porting are often largely confused. In the interest of being as brief as possible I’m not going to get into the intricacies of barrel compensation. Suffice it to say that compensation adds weight as well as some sort of exhaust gas expansion chamber to the barrel; whereas porting, in either of its two basic designs, uses only linear cuts or holes in the barrel, itself.

As a reader should now be able to see, very few pistol shooters actually understand ported pistol barrels, their authentic characteristics, or how to use a ported pistol barrel to maximum effect. At risk of implying that you are one of these shooters, I’m going to continue to describe this group as, ‘techno-dinosaurs’. Furthermore, I am reinforced in this opinion by the fact that the one example you have used is your experience with that slide-ported, ‘abortion’ marketed by Glock, GmbH.

I shoot muzzle-ported barrels, both, very well and very fast. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that I would not do nearly as well as were I to shift to using conventional (or slide-ported) pistol barrel designs. Now, do I foresee a 180 degree shift in popular consciousness toward muzzle-ported barrel designs?

No, I definitely do not. Manufacturing and increased sale costs, continued popular misunderstanding, and limited usefulness to the average pistol shooter are, all, reasons, ‘Why’ I don’t see pistol barrel porting ever replacing conventional pistol barrel designs. In fact I believe we, both, may expect the shooting public’s: limited experience, scant usage, and ongoing functional ignorance to continue to prevent pistol muzzle-porting from ever achieving popular acceptance; AND, what is more, largely confused topical gun forum threads like this one may be expected to continue.


No, I've never set anything on fire, but I've slammed my eyes shut more than once from the blast of hot gasses hitting me in the face while shooting from retention. Other times, my eyes stayed open, but I could feel the sting of unburnt powder and/or jacket fragments peppering my neck. After a few years, I purchased a regular barrel to replace the factory-ported barrel in my G17C. Was that experience representative of all the different types of ported barrels on the market? No; I'm sure some are better than others. Still, to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a dinosaur seems to miss the mark.

There have been a few long and highly detailed threads about the pros and cons of pistol barrel porting on the Glock Talk forum. (No matter what else might be said about Glock Talk it is a huge internet firearms website that, on occasion, proves itself to be a valuable technological resource.) I only wish that some of the excellent advice offered by any number of articulate and heavily experience ported pistol users had been able to filter out to the rest of the shooting community; but, alas, this has yet to happen!

I really get tired of answer this one; but, if you’re getting smacked in the face with upward directed muzzle gas then, for goodness sake, HOLD THE PISTOL DIFFERENT. There’s a right way, and a wrong way to eat a, ‘Sloppy Joe’; there’s a right way and a wrong way to reach in a knife fight; and there’s, also, a right way and a wrong way to hold and direct a pistol barrel when firing from retention. (Besides, would using a short barreled revolver or semiautomatic pistol be any different? NOT in my experience it wouldn’t!)


It's also worth noting that many of the "techno-dinosaurs" run brakes/ports/compensators on their long guns, but not on their pistols. Again, the age/technology argument just doesn't seem to hold water.

Oh, yes it does! On the plus side, though, this sort of relevant discussion is what these internet gun forums should be all about. I’m going to suggest that, in this instance, you just don’t want to see the alternative answers.


A couple more thoughts on porting:

1) Not all porting is created equal. I get much different results from Weigands' Hybra-Porting than I did from the S&W expansion chamber porting used on the F-Comp and K-Comp revolvers. Hybra-Porting does a much better job of taming muzzle rise than the S&W porting. Mag-Na-Port also provides different results. So do not toss all porting based on experience with only one type.

2) I have not tried the Glock C models because I find that recoil and muzzle jump is much less on a 9x19 autoloader than on a .357 Magnum revolver. Perhaps ported has not caught on for autoloaders because it does not make the difference it (Ed.) does in revolvers. The technology has not been ignored; it perhaps is not needed.

Yup! That’s the short answer to everything I’ve just taken the time to spell out.

[Jay Cunningham]

Pistolero,

Since you are passing yourself off as a Subject Matter Expert on barrel porting and on shooting handguns with ported barrels (to include being an SME on specialized CQB and retention techniques) it would be appropriate to give some of your background, education, and formal training related to the subject.

[Pistolero]

Pistolero, Since you are passing yourself off as a Subject Matter Expert on barrel porting and on shooting handguns with ported barrels (to include being an SME on specialized CQB and retention techniques) it would be appropriate to give some of your background, education, and formal training related to the subject.

First of all, I'm not, 'passing myself off as anything'. I didn't call myself an expert - You did. As far as I'm concerned anything you would like to know about me is contained in my site profile which I've already been courteous enough to complete.

I'm curious. How is it that you seem far more interested in the man than you are in the information that's been provided? If you have a specific comment on any of the details I've posted, say so. I'll be glad to reply to you in kind. If, however, you'd rather deal in personalities rather than in facts ...... well, I'm going to suggest that you need to be more careful. You might end up getting told what you deserve to hear.

[Byron]

...it seems ludicrous to me that any experienced pistol shooter would attribute more: muzzle blast, spatter, concussion, or noise to a properly muzzle-ported pistol barrel than to any of the popular short barreled semiautomatic or snub-nosed handgun design.
Snubbies are a whole 'nother can of worms, but I don't see what's ludicrous about suggesting that a muzzle-ported semi is likely to spew more gases at me than a short barreled semi. The function of the port is to redirect gases, which in turn redirects energy, which in turn tames recoil, correct? Given that gases and energy are being pushed in directions that they otherwise would not, what is ludicrous about noting such?

I'm not talking about some absolute measurement of change in atmospheric pressure surrounding the pistol in all directions. I'm saying that ports tend to redirect crap upwards, which happens to be a direction in which I might find parts of my body relative to the pistol.

I fully acknowledged in my first reply that my experience with one type of porting was not representative of all types, and I further acknowledged that different systems must perform better than others:


Was that experience representative of all the different types of ported barrels on the market? No; I'm sure some are better than others. Still, to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a dinosaur seems to miss the mark.





There have been a few long and highly detailed threads about the pros and cons of pistol barrel porting on the Glock Talk forum. (No matter what else might be said about Glock Talk it is a huge internet firearms website that, on occasion, proves itself to be a valuable technological resource.) I only wish that some of the excellent advice offered by any number of articulate and heavily experience ported pistol users had been able to filter out to the rest of the shooting community; but, alas, this has yet to happen!
No need to lament; you can do your part towards circulating that info by providing links.


I really get tired of answer this one; but, if you’re getting smacked in the face with upward directed muzzle gas then, for goodness sake, HOLD THE PISTOL DIFFERENT. There’s a right way, and a wrong way to eat a, ‘Sloppy Joe’; there’s a right way and a wrong way to reach in a knife fight; and there’s, also, a right way and a wrong way to hold and direct a pistol barrel when firing from retention. (Besides, would using a short barreled revolver or semiautomatic pistol be any different? NOT in my experience it wouldn’t!)
And I get really tired of non-responses like that.
Hold the pistol differently? It's like the old joke,
"Hey Doc, it hurts when I move my arm."
"Then don't move your arm."

1. Do you really believe that I never once experimented with different grips / indexes / angles?
2. My retention shooting position is part of my drawstroke. If introducing a ported weapon into the equation means that I must alter my retention shooting platform, I consider that a problem.
3. Yes, in my experience, shooting a short barreled semi is completely different. A short-barreled semi is spewing crap forward, while a ported weapon is also directing energy up. That area above the pistol, where some of that energy is being directed, is where my head will be.


I’m going to suggest that, in this instance, you just don’t want to see the alternative answers.
I'm not sure what I've written that leads you to believe that I "don't want" to see alternative answers. I'm first and foremost a man of science; I am not emotionally invested in my tools. I am more than happy to accept new technologies, dispose of outdated wisdom, and openly admit when I am wrong about something. Unless there is something I've said to suggest otherwise, I find your assertion a bit offensive.

[Jay Cunningham]

First of all, I'm not, 'passing myself off as anything'. I didn't call myself an expert - You did. As far as I'm concerned anything you would like to know about me is contained in my site profile which I've already been courteous enough to complete.

I'm curious. How is it that you seem far more interested in the man than you are in the information that's been provided? If you have a specific comment on any of the details I've posted, say so. I'll be glad to reply to you in kind. If, however, you'd rather deal in personalities rather than in facts ...... well, I'm going to suggest that you need to be more careful. You might end up getting told what you deserve to hear.

You are passing yourself off as an SME by your choice of words and your tone. If you choose to present yourself (which you are) as lecturing the ignorant masses from the mountaintop, expect to be called on it.

Claiming that the conventional wisdom of ported barrels being largely inappropriate for CCWs is somehow wrong-headed (and that only you are enlightened enough to understand it) is going to require a public disclosure of your CV to lend credibility to your assertions.

This is not a suggestion, this is a formal request.

[DocGKR]

If trying to tame recoil and speed shot recovery, some compensators work very well, likewise some ported barrels are effective.

Unfortunately, as noted, the Glock OEM porting is utterly abysmal and is not useful--I am aware of one Federal LE agency and one U.S. military organization that tried the ported Glocks and had numerous issues.

I choose not to use ported or compensated pistols for duty/personal defense purposes (and yes, I've tried quite a few), but if someone has a reliable handgun with such features, they understand the side effects, and they want to use it, feel free...

[David Armstrong]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Put me in the camp that says OEM is the way to go unless you can show some good reason to replace the part with an after-market. Improved sighting systems are always good, IMO. Aftermarket triggers and barrels? Not so good, IMO.

Why?
Quite simply, for most fighting guns they provide more downside than upside, IME. You generally won't improve the capabilites of the gun too much (witness all those folks who manage to do just fine with the stock configuration) and should you have to use the gun in a serious social encounter the change can be something questionable that a juror can focus on. It's easy to beat, but it costs money that really could be better spent elsewhere. See Mitchell, Esq. post for a good follow-up on the issue.

[bcauz3y]

All you need are night sights

Get rid of everything else

This.

I add an extended slide stop, but that's just personal preference.

[JBP55]

Modifications to firearms impact 2 areas:

1) Negligence - You did something that a reasonable person would not do, and have therefore created a firearm with an increased risk of an inintended discharge. Self defense is a willfull act, and you cannot have a "fortunate accident" in which the right person got shot accidentally...but it's all good.

Lightening triggers below what the manufacturer recomends opens you up to the allegation of negligence under the theory of "Careless in some, careless in all".

2) The WTF Factor - Your shooting will be looked at and reviewed by people who may not be all that happy with the fact you were carrying a gun...or by people who would be delighted you were carrying the gun, well trained and have closed the file on "G-Money" or "T"...but they aren't familiar with modifications or so forth any more than they are with firearms.

Yes, the prosecutor may be happy you did your business...but realize, guns and ammo for him really stopped with the M-16 qualification last time he did it with the National Guard, his M-9 (carried on safe, condition 3) or his old duty gun...a S&W M-19.

You start going beyond that, add a younger thug, a shot as he was turning, a cross racial shooting and you end up with someone starting to look at what you were carrying as "I'm just not comfortable with this case as self defense..."

Rarely do you see a prosecution in a "clear cut" case. That's because they are "clear cut"

Often you see the shooter "Who did NOTHING wrong!!!:mad:" creating a confused situation for himself by statements, gear, actions ectra...leaving the prosecutor nothing else but to say "Dam it, I just don't know what happened...I guess if they aren't going to plead, I'll try the case and see what happens."


I suppose you are an Attorney who practices criminal law?

[JDM]

I suppose you are an Attorney who practices criminal law?

Yes, he is.

[Sparks2112]

Yes, he is.

And I chuckle. :)

[CTone03]

I have no dog in the legal aspect of handgun mods, but I do have this to offer:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh284/CTone03/Jams/CTonesnuclear1911.jpg

I loved loved loved the recoil reduction and shootability of my Springer Ultra Compact V-10, but would never own another ported barrel. Granted, that fireball was with WWB ammo and not flash reduced ammo, but the other factors were the blast and noise. If I had to fire that gun in a house or car I knew it would be the last thing I would ever hear.

[JeffJ]

Your modifications sound to me like you're trying to get a G27 to perform like a G19 or a G17. Frankly, I'd just get a G19 and call it good.

This man speaks the truth - a G19 is not that much bigger but handles better - and when you go to 9mm instead fotay then your follow up shots should fall into place and you can afford to shoot more. The only two good reasons that I know of to shoot .40 is 1) you are issued it or 2) you want to make major -- I don't know if you're issued it and I've never heard of department gun having that many mods allowed - and 2) that would be a ridiculous choice for a gamer gun :D

If you're carrying in a cross breed then you should be able to put a 19 in the same holster. I would try to borrow one, or even blow $25-30 bucks on a blue gun and try it out for a while. I would imagine that it carries about the same as the baby glock. IMO, which does not include much time with a 26/27, they really shine for deep concealment, ie smart carry, ankle, belly band, cargo pocket, - but once you go to IWB the difference is negligible. YMMV

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I suppose you are an Attorney who practices criminal law?

Sooner or later, I'll actually get it right...:p

[JeffJ]

Remember, practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

[ToddG]

If you need expensive hardware and/or modifications to "tame" the recoil of 9mm, barring some physical infirmity I strongly suggest you instead invest in some practice ammo and a mindset adjustment. The vast majority of people I've seen praise ported guns have what I would consider mediocre fundamentals, especially their grip.

I've shot quite a few ported/comped guns. They're neat. In some cases -- like a forum member's G32C I got to shoot last year -- it definitely makes a difference. I had a student come through another class last year shooting a ported XD40 and it worked very well for him. If you like it, use it. Just understand there are some downsides.

First and foremost, as Byron points out, it's a mistake to assume that I can perfectly control the angle of the gun and/or the position of my face in relation to it during a situation that requires me to shoot from retention. "Retention position" is almost a misnomer because at contact distance I have to assume I may be pushed, pulled, twisted, etc. Worrying about where the muzzle is pointing is a big enough concern. Trying to add multiple additional layers of complexity so I don't spray hot gas and particulate into eyes -- odds are I won't be wearing wraparound eyepro in a real fight -- seems contraindicated.

Second, the primary benefit of ported pistols is a very small reduction in split times that is usually seen only against static targets from a static position (unless we're talking about complicated ports with non-reciprocating red dots i.e. IPSC Open guns). Shaving a couple hundredths off my splits just isn't a high enough priority for me to deal with aftermarket parts, increased muzzle blast, increased muzzle flash in low light, the above mentioned close quarters issues, need for custom holsters, etc.