Posted: 4/6/2014 6:49:41 PM EDT
|
Does anyone actually use these?
I know they have been standard issue in some LEO pistols (particularly Parks&Wildlife types). Back in the day, they were made from Unicorn horn, but now they are all over the web. Thinking about getting a set, because, you know, north Texas is a swamp and all 
|
|
Quoted:
Unless you're a Navy SEAL you're better off without maritime spring cups in your Glock. The standard design is much more durable. (If it weren't Glock, GmbH would automatically include maritime cups in ALL new Glocks; but they don't!) No, they are good for folks who spend time around the water. Folks like game wardens, LEO's and private citizens who live or work around bodies of water. |
|
Quoted:
No, they are good for folks who spend time around the water. Folks like game wardens, LEO's and private citizens who live or work around bodies of water. Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless you're a Navy SEAL you're better off without maritime spring cups in your Glock. The standard design is much more durable. (If it weren't Glock, GmbH would automatically include maritime cups in ALL new Glocks; but they don't!) No, they are good for folks who spend time around the water. Folks like game wardens, LEO's and private citizens who live or work around bodies of water. They are a waste for them as well. I know for sure they are not using them in the Marine Patrol Units and Game Wardens/Conservation Police in our area. Glock even told them it would be a waste and would provide them with no benefits. |
|
Quoted:
They are a waste for them as well. I know for sure they are not using them in the Marine Patrol Units and Game Wardens/Conservation Police in our area. Glock even told them it would be a waste and would provide them with no benefits. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless you're a Navy SEAL you're better off without maritime spring cups in your Glock. The standard design is much more durable. (If it weren't Glock, GmbH would automatically include maritime cups in ALL new Glocks; but they don't!) No, they are good for folks who spend time around the water. Folks like game wardens, LEO's and private citizens who live or work around bodies of water. They are a waste for them as well. I know for sure they are not using them in the Marine Patrol Units and Game Wardens/Conservation Police in our area. Glock even told them it would be a waste and would provide them with no benefits. That's fantastic! Thanks for your contribution to the conversation 
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTICE!
If you want to use maritime spring cups in your Glock then, please, go right ahead. It's only a concern to me when they're installed in my Glock! Besides, unless your ears are heavily muffled, you'll only fire your Glock underwater exactly one time! 
|
|
I have them in all my Glocks just because I can and the comment about reliability is complete horse do do. I will only use the Glock factory ones which I purchased from Glockmeister. The only difference in them and standard is they are notched around the perimeter. The cups allow water to pass around the striker so it operates with full force. Otherwise, the standard cups act like piston rings, having to force the water out, slowing the striker down. I have never heard of them breaking and even if they cracked, the spring holds them in place.
I would never fire my gun under water but I could fire it wet and I like knowing it will go bang when I pull the trigger even if there is water inside. 
|
|
I have these installed in my Glocks. From my personal experience of actually firing a Glock underwater, we learned that they will indeed fire once without maritime spring cups. However, if you want to fire repeatedly underwater, maritime spring cups must be installed. With the maritime cups installed you could shoot underwater as fast as you could pull the trigger. The Glock, in our case a G19, would cycle and fire 100% when submerged. However I wouldn't recommend it because I am not sure the physics involved, but the shockwave or whatever in the water made a painful tingle in the shooting wrist and forearm when the gun was fired.
|
|
They are NOT for people who live and work around water. They are for the very select few in the world who are doing infil and exfil type stuff UNDER water, where they come out of the water ready to shoot. They are a waste of money for civilians and they are weaker (pretty obvious because it is less material).
OP you seem to have made up your mind and came here for reassurance. If you want them, get them. You will need them if you are one of those cool guys who likes to show his friends his gun can shoot underwater. |
|
Quoted:
They are NOT for people who live and work around water. They are for the very select few in the world who are doing infil and exfil type stuff UNDER water, where they come out of the water ready to shoot. They are a waste of money for civilians and they are weaker (pretty obvious because it is less material). OP you seem to have made up your mind and came here for reassurance. If you want them, get them. You will need them if you are one of those cool guys who likes to show his friends his gun can shoot underwater. When I went through Glock Armorer's School, the instructor told us they were for LEO's and military that worked in marine environments. YMMV. Not seing how they are weaker, however, IF you understand how the spring cups function. |
|
Quoted:
That's my belief. I'm curious how many people actually try firing them underwater, though. Quoted:
Quoted:
A Glock owner and his money are soon parted... That's my belief. I'm curious how many people actually try firing them underwater, though. None with brains. As a handgun round fired underwater goes about six feet and sinks. Theres plenty of youtube vids to watch it done. |
|
Quoted:
None with brains. As a handgun round fired underwater goes about six feet and sinks. Theres plenty of youtube vids to watch it done. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Glock owner and his money are soon parted... That's my belief. I'm curious how many people actually try firing them underwater, though. None with brains. As a handgun round fired underwater goes about six feet and sinks. Theres plenty of youtube vids to watch it done. Really? A youtube video? 
I've got a DVD of numerous handguns and bullet types firing underwater, and hitting a wooden target hard enough to get bullet deformation in some cases. While we'd all agree that's not the intended use your data set of one round is nit a data set. |
|
Quoted: When I went through Glock Armorer's School, the instructor told us they were for LEO's and military that worked in marine environments. YMMV. Not seing how they are weaker, however, IF you understand how the spring cups function. Quoted: Quoted: They are NOT for people who live and work around water. They are for the very select few in the world who are doing infil and exfil type stuff UNDER water, where they come out of the water ready to shoot. They are a waste of money for civilians and they are weaker (pretty obvious because it is less material). OP you seem to have made up your mind and came here for reassurance. If you want them, get them. You will need them if you are one of those cool guys who likes to show his friends his gun can shoot underwater. When I went through Glock Armorer's School, the instructor told us they were for LEO's and military that worked in marine environments. YMMV. Not seing how they are weaker, however, IF you understand how the spring cups function. You are incorrect. As of two days ago, the Glock Factory rep told us the only reason they make them is for some obscure military contracts. Most of those are foreign. They are not for LEO's who work in maritime environments. They discourage their use, and will only sell them to agencies when ordered on letterhead. They help with drainage, but also wear out much faster since there is less material. And Glock advises against shooting under water. |
|
Quoted:
You are incorrect. As of two days ago, the Glock Factory rep told us the only reason they make them is for some obscure military contracts. Most of those are foreign. They are not for LEO's who work in maritime environments. They discourage their use, and will only sell them to agencies when ordered on letterhead. They help with drainage, but also wear out much faster since there is less material. And Glock advises against shooting under water. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are NOT for people who live and work around water. They are for the very select few in the world who are doing infil and exfil type stuff UNDER water, where they come out of the water ready to shoot. They are a waste of money for civilians and they are weaker (pretty obvious because it is less material). OP you seem to have made up your mind and came here for reassurance. If you want them, get them. You will need them if you are one of those cool guys who likes to show his friends his gun can shoot underwater. When I went through Glock Armorer's School, the instructor told us they were for LEO's and military that worked in marine environments. YMMV. Not seing how they are weaker, however, IF you understand how the spring cups function. You are incorrect. As of two days ago, the Glock Factory rep told us the only reason they make them is for some obscure military contracts. Most of those are foreign. They are not for LEO's who work in maritime environments. They discourage their use, and will only sell them to agencies when ordered on letterhead. They help with drainage, but also wear out much faster since there is less material. And Glock advises against shooting under water. I am certainly not incorrect, however, my info is apparently dated. Glock used to reccomend and install these years ago in certain LE contract guns. Hell, there was even a write up about Florida natural resources cops having them in one of the first Glock Annuals. |
|
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one!
Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) |
|
Quoted:
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one! Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. |
|
Quoted:
The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one! Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. 
Did I say the spring cups had anything to do with barrel draining? TIME is what I was referring to! To some extent maritime spring cups do reduce hydraulic pressure on the firing pin. At the same time so does that weep hole I, also, mentioned. Over the past decade this topic has been (literally) beaten to death on Glock Talk. All I did was to reiterate the majority opinion of GT's older and more experienced respondents. Personally I use 6 lbs. trigger and striker springs in my Glocks. As far as I'm concerned these heavier springs are worth far more than the inherently weaker maritime cups WHICH NO SERIOUS PISTOL-PACKING AGENCY I know of uses in their Glock pistols, anyway! (Because real gunsmiths and agency armorers know better than to play, 'Navy SEALS' with their service weapons.) As I've already stated: Maritime spring cups are about as relevant to serious pistol work as tits are to a bull. I haven't done it recently; but there have been days when I've fired 800 to 1,000 rounds through one of my Glocks. You don't really think I want anything but standard spring cups in a Glock when I'm shooting like this; do you! By the way THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS ON GT about maritime cups which have failed; but, then again, 'Why' wouldn't they? There's a large reduction in what the factory engineers usually consider to be necessary mass and strength in a normal set of cups. As I said: I know Glock, GmbH/Inc. to be (How shall I say this nicely?) 'frugal enough' to switch the entire production line over to maritime cups IF these cups were the equal of standard solid wall cups; AND, that has yet to be done. As far as I'm concerned this whole, 'shoot your Glock underwater thing' is just more silly internet gun forum nonsense. Anyone who has to use a Glock pistol underwater is already in serious trouble that he's, more than likely, NOT going to be escaping from. Then there's also these ridiculous, 'soak your Glock in freezing mud and snow' torture tests. No test I've ever examined referred to the use of Maritime spring cups; and - as we, all, know - once these Glocks were either thawed out or rinsed off THEY ALL IMMEDIATELY FIRED! What a silly topic of discussion! Perhaps we can move on to something more practical and relevant now. 
|
|
Quoted:
The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one! Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. I've only ever seen a few broken parts and spring cups weren't one of them. I don't even think they even wear... the old ones in my 1st gen 17 look pretty much the same as the ones in my 4th gen 34. My guess is, if they are damaged at all, it is probably due to someone taking the gun apart and not assembling it properly before it would be from firing it. |
|
Quoted:
Did I say the spring cups had anything to do with barrel draining? TIME is what I was referring to! To some extent maritime spring cups do reduce hydraulic pressure on the firing pin. At the same time so does that weep hole I, also, mentioned. Over the past decade this topic has been (literally) beaten to death on Glock Talk. All I did was to reiterate the majority opinion of GT's older and more experienced respondents. Personally I use 6 lbs. trigger and striker springs in my Glocks. As far as I'm concerned these heavier springs are worth far more than the inherently weaker maritime cups WHICH NO SERIOUS PISTOL-PACKING AGENCY I know of uses in their Glock pistols, anyway! (Because real gunsmiths and agency armorers know better than to play, 'Navy SEALS' with their service weapons.) As I've already stated: Maritime spring cups are about as relevant to serious pistol work as tits are to a bull. I haven't done it recently; but there have been days when I've fired 800 to 1,000 rounds through one of my Glocks. You don't really think I want anything but standard spring cups in a Glock when I'm shooting like this; do you! By the way THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS ON GT about maritime cups which have failed; but, then again, 'Why' wouldn't they? There's a large reduction in what the factory engineers usually consider to be necessary mass and strength in a normal set of cups. As I said: I know Glock, GmbH/Inc. to be (How shall I say this nicely?) 'frugal enough' to switch the entire production line over to maritime cups IF these cups were the equal of standard solid wall cups; AND, that has yet to be done. As far as I'm concerned this whole, 'shoot your Glock underwater thing' is just more silly internet gun forum nonsense. Anyone who has to use a Glock pistol underwater is already in serious trouble that he's, more than likely, NOT going to be escaping from. Then there's also these ridiculous, 'soak your Glock in freezing mud and snow' torture tests. No test I've ever examined referred to the use of Maritime spring cups; and - as we, all, know - once these Glocks were either thawed out or rinsed off THEY ALL IMMEDIATELY FIRED! What a silly topic of discussion! Perhaps we can move on to something more practical and relevant now. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one! Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction.
Did I say the spring cups had anything to do with barrel draining? TIME is what I was referring to! To some extent maritime spring cups do reduce hydraulic pressure on the firing pin. At the same time so does that weep hole I, also, mentioned. Over the past decade this topic has been (literally) beaten to death on Glock Talk. All I did was to reiterate the majority opinion of GT's older and more experienced respondents. Personally I use 6 lbs. trigger and striker springs in my Glocks. As far as I'm concerned these heavier springs are worth far more than the inherently weaker maritime cups WHICH NO SERIOUS PISTOL-PACKING AGENCY I know of uses in their Glock pistols, anyway! (Because real gunsmiths and agency armorers know better than to play, 'Navy SEALS' with their service weapons.) As I've already stated: Maritime spring cups are about as relevant to serious pistol work as tits are to a bull. I haven't done it recently; but there have been days when I've fired 800 to 1,000 rounds through one of my Glocks. You don't really think I want anything but standard spring cups in a Glock when I'm shooting like this; do you! By the way THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS ON GT about maritime cups which have failed; but, then again, 'Why' wouldn't they? There's a large reduction in what the factory engineers usually consider to be necessary mass and strength in a normal set of cups. As I said: I know Glock, GmbH/Inc. to be (How shall I say this nicely?) 'frugal enough' to switch the entire production line over to maritime cups IF these cups were the equal of standard solid wall cups; AND, that has yet to be done. As far as I'm concerned this whole, 'shoot your Glock underwater thing' is just more silly internet gun forum nonsense. Anyone who has to use a Glock pistol underwater is already in serious trouble that he's, more than likely, NOT going to be escaping from. Then there's also these ridiculous, 'soak your Glock in freezing mud and snow' torture tests. No test I've ever examined referred to the use of Maritime spring cups; and - as we, all, know - once these Glocks were either thawed out or rinsed off THEY ALL IMMEDIATELY FIRED! What a silly topic of discussion! Perhaps we can move on to something more practical and relevant now. This is a technical forum, not GT and not GD. Don't like the discussion, don't participate. 
|
|
Quoted:
I've only ever seen a few broken parts and spring cups weren't one of them. I don't even think they even wear... the old ones in my 1st gen 17 look pretty much the same as the ones in my 4th gen 34. My guess is, if they are damaged at all, it is probably due to someone taking the gun apart and not assembling it properly before it would be from firing it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll go with Zaminsky on this one! Based on what I've learned about Glock pistols these past 10 years I'd say the, 'marine spring cups' are, indeed, weaker (or else as cheap as Glock is) the marine cups would be standard issue across the board. I'd, also, say that marine cups are about as useful in real life as, 'tits on a bull'. As long as you give the barrel time to drain, that Glock is going to fire; and unless your ears are well muffled, you'd be nutz to actually fire that Glock underwater. (Remember, there's still a, 'weep hole' in the bottom of the slide!) The spring cups have nothing to do with the barrel draining. They are about eliminating the piston effect of the striker with standard spring cups and not having enough force against the primer. For those saying they are weaker, you need more than just your gut to back up this assertion. Just because you "think" they must be weaker does not make it so. What I need is for a Glock or Department Armorer to pipe up and give me one single instance where they have seen the spring cups fail or cause a malfunction. I've only ever seen a few broken parts and spring cups weren't one of them. I don't even think they even wear... the old ones in my 1st gen 17 look pretty much the same as the ones in my 4th gen 34. My guess is, if they are damaged at all, it is probably due to someone taking the gun apart and not assembling it properly before it would be from firing it. Aw, come on! You just know that polymer spring cups captured inside a spring riding in a polymer firing pin channel is gonna fail in like 50 rounds dude!!
|
|
Quoted:
Here, it is mentioned Glock sells to divers: http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-73245.html Here a poster talks about them being installed in a Police trade-in: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21039686 I read your links. Some folks keep questioning why Glock doesn't recommend them but I have a pretty good idea. It's called civil liability. If they come out against them publicly, then when some Darwin Award recipient blows himself up in his backyard pool and decides he wants to sue Glock for his own stupidity, Glock can claim "I told you so." |
|
Quoted:
I read your links. Some folks keep questioning why Glock doesn't recommend them but I have a pretty good idea. It's called civil liability. If they come out against them publicly, then when some Darwin Award recipient blows himself up in his backyard pool and decides he wants to sue Glock for his own stupidity, Glock can claim "I told you so." Quoted:
Quoted:
Here, it is mentioned Glock sells to divers: http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-73245.html Here a poster talks about them being installed in a Police trade-in: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21039686 I read your links. Some folks keep questioning why Glock doesn't recommend them but I have a pretty good idea. It's called civil liability. If they come out against them publicly, then when some Darwin Award recipient blows himself up in his backyard pool and decides he wants to sue Glock for his own stupidity, Glock can claim "I told you so." Agreed. And it's not just a component issue. Glock will never encourage end users to perform armorer level maintenance or repair. We'll all agree it's easy to service a Glock, but none of us are writing that check when Billy Bob has a Kb!
|
|
Quoted:
This is a technical forum, not GT and not GD. Don't like the discussion, don't participate. Fooled me! I would have sworn it's just more of the, 'same old, same old'; but if you say so ....... By the way, the other end of Glock's 75% + pretensioned striker spring is attached to - what? - the spring cups; and, even though you might not be able to see it, THAT is wear. |