Is it safe to dry fire a pistol? - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Is it safe to dry fire a pistol?

  1. #21
    Surprised no one posted about Glock coming out officially saying extended periods of dry firing needs to be done with a snap cap. Once here or there, to break down the gun, no issue, empty chamber is fine. Training, snap cap. This came out about a year ago.

  2.   
  3. #22
    The majority of gun manufacturers address this in their owners manual. They do not recommend it. Yes I read the manual, most don't.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Greggatshack View Post
    An Australian shooter comes over here every-so-often and cleans up in our national Service Pistol competition gold medal when he does. In a coaching session he told us that he does 1 million dry fires per year as part of his training regimen. I believe he uses a S&W 686. I'm nowhere near as dedicated as he is and don't even approach a 10th of that number. I'm not concerned about damage if he isn't.
    Would that be with, or without using snap caps?

    This is a perpetual internet gun forum argument. Apparently a lot of people missed the announcement; but when Glock GmbH/Inc. stopped Tenifer-treating their pistols the factory announced that Glock pistols should only be fired with a snap cap in the chamber.

    For many years I was on a first-name basis with several of the people at Smith & Wesson in Springfield. I once asked one of the technical people what the real story is about dry-firing S&W handguns? He thought for a moment before replying that the older revolvers with the anvil directly attached to the hammer shouldn't be dry-fired; but the newer revolvers with the indirect separate hammer and impact-type anvil can be safely dry-fired without using snap caps, AND, 'within reason'.

    What happens when you fire a handgun without using snap caps? The breech hole the anvil/striker passes through can elongate. The breech plate is subjected to additional impact force; and, now, that force is being applied from - not one, but - both sides. (Front and back) Firing pin wear will, also, increase.

    Most handguns, today, are manufactured from more ductile, CNC machine-compatible steel. It's softer than the older ordinance-grade carbon steel and, consequently, less resistant to impact. Personally, I think the type of steel used to make Glock pistols is presently more vulnerable to dry-fire impact than certain other gun steels and, especially, the older gun steels. Glock's recent manufacturing changes to both the heat treating and Tenifer processes has only exacerbate the problem; and will, I am sure, increase the incidence of breech face failures. (Read, 'pistol's longterm lifespan'.)

  5. #24
    Very good post above. The Glock postol today is a good gun, but one ten years old is a great gun. Manufacturing changes are delivering a reduced quality product.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by N R A View Post
    Very good post above. The Glock postol today is a good gun, but one ten years old is a great gun. Manufacturing changes are delivering a reduced quality product.
    I couldn't agree more! Nobody is going to get my ORIGINAL, Tenifer-treated, 3rd generation Glocks away from me; and, at present, I carry one of them around with me all day long, too.

  7. I'd say when in doubt use a snap cap...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast