Well, I'm a Glock Talker, so I might be able to shed some more light here.
Any gun can rupture, given bad ammo. Yes, even the all-steel Sig P220 can rupture with a double charged round, or shooting a normal round through a barrel that has a blockage.
For example, a double charge of fast burning powder, such as the ones used in the low pressure .45 ACP cartridge, can easily cause such damage to any firearm. Double charges can happen, even with factory new ammo, although the odds of it happening are exceedingly rare.
Nevertheless, it has been known to happen.
The same holds true with squib loads, where one might find a cartridge that had either no, or way too little powder in it, resulting in a bullet being propelled with pretty much primer force only, resulting in blockages of the barrel.
When the OP stated that the ammo was "lead free factory loads," it's still a bit questionable as to what's being used. Was it Federal's NT load? PMC's "Green" load? Or, was it a small company who makes batches of ammo using Bullseye, plated bullets, and leadless primers?
This isn't to say that such loads are bad; in fact, one of my favorite companies is a smaller operation called "Georgia Arms," who makes factory reloads that are as good as any factory new ammo out there (and they're 100% insured).
There are, after all, good companies, and bad companies. If the shooter were using "American Ammunition" with the dreaded A-MERC headstamp on the brass, then that would certainly explain things. American Ammunition (the company, not American companies in general) uses an alloy of brass that's way too rigid, and it's not unusual for there to be bulges in the brass that are formed during the seating of the bullet. Also, their "lead free" bullets are nothing more than unjacketed lead that was soaked in a solution of copper salts.
As for the lack of support in the 6 o'clock area of a Glock barrel, it's really not any less supported than 1911 barrels that are a bit throated.
Regarding the claim that Glock will try to deny the guy a replacement, that's BS. If the ammo were indeed factory new ammo, then Glock will replace the gun. It may take some time for them to do so, but they will do it. Or, he could speak with the ammo company's rep about this, whose insurance should cover it.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
In retrospect, given that at the time I didn't collect "enough" information on the incident, I don't think the barrel blew up or anything like that. Would that suggest that the culprit wasn't a double charge in this case?
Darn straight. I've never once heard of bad Glock CS. In fact, I've even heard of people getting extended slide stops, mag releases, 3.5 lb connectors and other things like that tossed in for free for the trouble.
Originally Posted by chemistry
Not necessarily. I would guess that it depends on how the bullet is seated. The barrel's job is to safely guide the projectile and all of the gasses that come with it out the muzzle end of the weapon. A bad round may not sit well in the barrel which in turn would not allow the barrel to fully perform it's function, letting hot gas escape into other parts of the weapon possibly causing a KB without any severe damage to the barrel, but instead to other areas where the gas could have escaped to. It would be surprising to see a barrel treated with Glock's Tenifer process get messed up anyway. Steel with that treatment is one of the hardest materials known to man, not far behind a diamond. (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferritic_nitrocarburizing)
Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
believe it or not, this is a serious post (note that well, plasmatard). How is that one is going to get an impartial opinion on glocks from a place called 'glock talk'? I mean if you're a regular there you must really like, or really not like, glocks.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to answer such a simple question like this, but I will: Good research comes from getting information from ALL sides, not just the ones that you get from sources that you like.
Originally Posted by DayOfTheJackass
Glock Talk is, indeed, more made up of Glock fans than not. However, that does not make it a 100% biased place. Many users there are not fans of Glock pistols at all, but fans of other weapons that there are sub-forums for through GT. These people include members like "Okie", who is considered to be the "Mayor of Glock Talk" and is one of it's most respected members. Okie has over 100,000 posts (not exaggerating either) and doesn't even like Glocks that much, although he does respect them. He is a 1911 man through and through. And that's just one of many members who aren't there to talk about Glocks specifically. It's a very diverse place. Plus it's the only place you're going to find with as many GSSF Members, Certified Glock Armorers and as many avid Glock shooters as it has on the entire internet. You don't go to The Firing Line, even though it is a great forum, to talk to as many guys as possible that work on Glocks regularly. You still visit to get some more opinions on Glock pistols to help give you as much info as possible before forming an opinion, but you don't just settle for information that backs up the outcome you already have in the back of your head. Otherwise you're not even doing any real research, just looking to validate your own already formed opinions.
I'm no Plasma, but I am a moderator of this forum.
Originally Posted by DayOfTheJackass
This is one of those questions that you should be able to figure out on your own with a bit of thought. Is Bullshido populated entirely by martial artists who believe in aliveness? No it is not. I have a hard time understanding why you couldn't figure out that Glocktalk doesn't either DoTJ.
I didn't move your post because I try to remain impartial and it was vaguely on topic, but if you ask another blatantly obvious question in this forum, I will move it next time.
No you shouldn't, but thank you anyway.
Originally Posted by zaohu
Well yeah all forms of text are of potential use in situating oneself to appreciate a given issue, certainly wasn't suggesting the glock talk forum be dismissed entirely. Seeking to provide evidenced support for a given contention can still, in some cases, constitute research but that’s something of a derail (Michael Crotty, 'foundations of social research', interesting read, relevant stuff in the intro chapter about that...)