I am having a debate with myself. In my stories I never know if I should be writing a number (10) or ten. I have always seen paragraphs that start with a number it is written out (ten) but I still am not sure if there is a hard and fast rule about internal numbers.
depends on the guide you are looking at.
I'll go with one to twelve written out, 13 upwards, as numbers.
Unless they are in the same paragraph and below 100 ("ten" and "13" in the same paragraph looks stupid.)
There is a rule. Should you follow it? I don't.
Formal prose calls for numbers to be written out if they are in single (significant ?) digits or if they start a sentence.
"Significant" up there means that "seven thousand" has only one significant digit; the others are all zeroes.
Don't trust me on this. I try to remember the rules I follow, but not the rules I don't.
This site compares the AP and Chicago guides: https://apvschicago.com/2011/05/numbers-spell-out-or-use-numerals.html
They don't address dialogue, though, because it's not directed toward fiction.
I recall an entry in the AP Stylebook years ago. It said spell out numbers that begin a sentence, unless the number is a year. The example as correct usage: "1976 was a very good year." I'd bet that writers who wanted to use 1,693,441,692, would find a way to ensure that it was NOT the first word in the sentence so they wouldn't have to spell it out. Even though it's not fiction, news stories do contain quotations from newsmakers.
Here are my personal rules on this.
First rules is:
One thing to keep in mind when reading the existing style guides is they are not the absolute authority on the use of the English language or the way to use English grammar. They're only the authority for their own organisation, and those other organisations who instruct people to use those style guides within their organisation.
The second rule is:
Most style guides say numbers under one hundred should be in full words, but numbers over one hundred can be in numerals when in the narrative. Some guides also apply this rule to numbers in the dialogue while other guides say all of the numbers in dialogue should be the full words. Whatever you do you need to be consistent in your usage.
The third rule is:
My personal advice on the issues of numbers is to go with the basic dialogue rule to write the full word for everything as it would be said when you say it out loud to someone in both the narrative and the dialogue This allows for the use of known acronyms and initialisms in dialogue by using the short versions of them, and to use full words for all of the others.
I also advise you simplify the numbers in dialogue where you can by either having the story using a set of numbers easy to use in the dialogue, or by having the speaker do the usual thing of rounding the figures out.
By using the numerals in the narrative you can show the full amount in less space, and by rounding it in the dialogue you make the words said less numerous while you adhere to the rule of using the full words in dialogue. Also, the verbal rounding is very common in real life.
The fourth rule is:
Many style guides allow for the use of symbols like the percentage sign (%), the dollar sign ($), the ampersand (&), and others in the text of narrative while some even allow their use in dialogue. However, you should avoid using any of them in dialogue, and only use the dollar sign ($) in the narrative when showing an irregular amount of money. Using the words to show five thousand dollars in both the narrative and dialogue flows more smoothly to the reader than $5,000.00 does. Not only do the numbers and symbols stand out more than the words, thus being a possible visual disruption to the reader, they don't always convert over into other formats cleanly. This is due to many symbols being used for code commands in software languages. The symbol of the ampersand is used as the first character of a lot of HTML codes, so it can disrupt the correct conversion of the text into HTML.
The symbol of the ampersand is used as the first character of a lot of HTML codes, so it can disrupt the correct conversion of the text into HTML.
Back then – before M$ discouraged keyboard shortcuts to access menu items and buttons – you had to add an ampersand prior to the shortcut character in the caption, causing an underline of the character.
E.g. "&Previous Page" would get the 'P' underlined and used as keyboard shortcut. If the caption should show as "Save & Exit" with 'x' underlined as the shortcut character, you had to provide the caption text as "Save && E&xit". I think this was true for both Visual Basic and Visual C++, but because I never programmed user interfaces in C, I can't remember exactly.
HM.
Many style guides allow for the use of symbols like the percentage sign (%), the dollar sign ($), the ampersand (&), and others in the text of narrative while some even allow their use in dialogue. However, you should avoid using any of them in dialogue, and only use the dollar sign ($) in the narrative when showing an irregular amount of money. Using the words to show five thousand dollars in both the narrative and dialogue flows more smoothly to the reader than $5,000.00 does. Not only do the numbers and symbols stand out more than the words, thus being a possible visual disruption to the reader, they don't always convert over into other formats cleanly. This is due to many symbols being used for code commands in software languages. The symbol of the ampersand is used as the first character of a lot of HTML codes, so it can disrupt the correct conversion of the text into HTML.
Sorry, Ernest, but this guide is utter nonsense (I'm guessing it was written quite a while ago, back when the internet hadn't agreed on how to present characters online (the old PC vs Apple wars).
Using an ampersand only causes a problem when you submit your work to an html conversion (like the SOL forum), in which case you simply use the html ampersand command ("& amp;code;").
But, avoiding all symbols solely because you aren't smart enough to figure them out is questionable advice, at best, and is delusional thinking at worse.
I'm been using publishing characters, including accents in foreign languages, for years, both on SOL and in publishing (eBooks and Print), and have never had a problem other than forgetting to double check they appear correctly (Word routinely converts foreign text into another font which won't display the accent characters properly, so those sentences have to be reset to the correct Style Definition. However, one should always research how to represent special characters before they attempt to use them in fiction.
I'm guessing it was written quite a while ago
No! This part was only added in the last few years.
First, you should not use symbols or numbers in dialogue at all because dialogue is supposed to be the words of what the character would be saying. The reason to avoid many of the symbols in the narrative is because some of the programs will mistake them for command symbols. Thus by avoiding them you avoid the issue.
While it is an issue with some HTML code convertors some of them handle it OK; while some want the HTML command some will accept the stand alone & as not being a command. However, I've seen some of the ebook reader programs see symbols in text of ebooks as commands and that does weird things in the text. I've had the same epub files display perfectly in some programs and screwed up in others, despite being passed by the approved epub validator.
Mind you, I do use the ampersand symbol of & where it's really appropriate like in a formal name such as H & K MP 5, or Malcolm, Dunn, Right, & Goode.
H & K MP 5
Is there an ampersand in that name. In my WIP, I have "HK MP7".
Btw, Smith & Wesson uses the ampersand in their name.
the company's full name is Heckler & Koch.
True, but the company's own website drops the & when using the initials.
https://www.heckler-koch.com/en/products/military/submachine-guns/mp5/mp5/overview.html
Probably the most popular series of submachine guns in the world, it functions according to the proven roller-delayed blowback principle. Tremendously reliable, with maximum safety for the user, easy to handle, modular, extremely accurate and extraordinarily easy to control when firing – HK features that are particularly appreciated by security forces and military users worldwide.
I have a HK91 and a USP. The rifle is stamped "HK91", the pistol has Heckler & Koch on the frame, and HK on the slide/barrel. I'm going with what's stamped on the rifle.
I'm going with what's stamped on the rifle.
That's fine, but I'll note that the use of the initials in the model name is consistent with the usage of the initials I noted on from their web site, no &.
On the other hand, I also took a look at Smith & Wesson's web site. While I didn't find any free standing use of the initials in text, the model names on their pistols that include the initials retain the & and the pictures show the barrels stamped the same way.
So it's HK, but S&W.
So it's HK, but S&W.
That's what I found doing my research. I switched the Smith & Wesson to a Glock 19 for the MC in the first novel, but in this story I have both an MP5 (bad guys) and an HK MP7 (Special Ops guys).
So for the MP5, I didn't bother with the "HK" before it. I mention that several times, whereas the HK MP7 is mentioned only once.
So for the MP5, I didn't bother with the "HK" before it. I mention that several times, whereas the HK MP7 is mentioned only once.
You typically only mention the bad guy's armaments (by name) once, while you continually reinforce the good guy's as a brand of honor and professionalism (i.e. 'This guy knows what he's doing, and is proud of his choices').
(i.e. 'This guy knows what he's doing, and is proud of his choices'
I simply looked up the weapons Special Ops uses. Found it to be the HK MP7.
When it came to the bad guys' submachine guns, I think I found that it was the most common submachine gun used.
I simply looked up the weapons Special Ops uses. Found it to be the HK MP7.
I wasn't criticizing your selection, just observing that writers rarely spend much time on the bad guy's choice of weaponry. Ian Flemming did (somewhere), but only to note when the Russians' guns misfired.
With the protagonist, authors tend to emphasize their choices repeatedly. But people tend to use either what's available, or what they're familiar with. So it typically is either what they used in the military, what they trained with, or what's currently most popular or easiest to purchase.
Speaking of Glock, there are some authors who've obviously never handled nor researched them. The obvious part comes from mention of toggling the safety on and off.
The obvious part comes from mention of toggling the safety on and off.
There is no safety on a Glock.
That's what Remus2 was referring to in his post.
I know. I was showing off that I know more than I know. LOL
There is no safety on a Glock.
Technically, my 17 Gen 4 has a trigger safety. You have to fully pull the little lever in the middle of the trigger with your finger before you can pull the trigger. You can't grip the trigger from the outside and pull it, it remains locked in place.
Otherwise, the safety on a Glock is, is there one in the chamber? If not, then it's on safe. If so, the weapon is charged and ready to fire.
Otherwise, the safety on a Glock is, is there one in the chamber? If not, then it's on safe.
Ok, I learned about semi-automatic pistols by researching the internet. I thought if a pistol did not have a round in the chamber it can't be fired. I thought you first had to rack the slide to get the round into the chamber before firing.
What don't I know?
I thought you first had to rack the slide to get the round into the chamber before firing.
Would you agree the pistol is 'safe' if there is no round in the chamber and the slide has to be racked in order to load one into the chamber?
Would you agree the pistol is 'safe' if there is no round in the chamber and the slide has to be racked in order to load one into the chamber?
Yes, that's what I thought.
I wasn't questioning Glock's decision not to have a safety lever that you flip. I was just afraid that what people were saying here meant if a round wasn't in the chamber and the trigger was pulled, it would load a round and then fire it.
I'm glad that isn't the case. I've had the MC stick the Glock in the back of his pants without a round being in the chamber. I would hate for him to accidentally shoot his ass off.
ONE MORE QUESTION
I had the MC hit the eject button. But he caught the magazine while it was partway out of the handle. I then had him rack the slide to pop out the round in the chamber and then push the magazine back in to seat it. Does that work?
Does that work?
Only if he has three hands.
One hand to hold the pistol
A second to catch the magazine whilst part ejected, therefore must be held or it would fall to the ground.
A third hand to rack the slide.
The second or third hand could then reinsert the magazine.
Beware though as some pistols operate differently.
ETA if you intended the hand holding the magazine to also rack the slide, try it sometime, catching a half ejected mag does not make for optimum grip, if the intent is speed, manipulating the slide whilst holding the mag is asking for problems.
Only if he has three hands.
It didn't all happen at once. On the sly, he ejected the magazine and caught it partway out. Then, holding it partway out, he held the gun up for all to see and pulled the slide to pop the round out of the chamber and catch it in mid-air. He put that round in his pocket and tapped the magazine back in. Now the gun wasn't "locked and loaded," but with a simple rack of the slide it would be. In the scene, he wanted to show everyone the gun wasn't ready to be fired.
caught it partway out. Then, holding it partway out,
Are you suggesting he used only one hand to both hold the pistol and catch the mag..??
The mag being part way ejected won't stay in place unless held there.
So you are back to needing three hands...
The mag being part way ejected won't stay in place unless held there.
He ejected the magazine. Caught it before it completely came out so it's not seated but still inside the handle. Now he's holding the gun by the handle to rack the slide, but he's using his pinky on that hand to keep the magazine from falling out.
That works :)
In your sample text, the end result is he is holding the ejected round but unless the mag was empty, has now chambered another round. Was that your intent?
In your sample text, the end result is he is holding the ejected round but unless the mag was empty, has now chambered another round. Was that your intent?
No. I thought if the magazine was loose in the handle, not seated, it wouldn't load another round into the chamber. That's why he ejected the magazine before pulling the slide back and releasing it.
I revised the paragraph above.
I thought if the magazine was loose in the handle, not seated, it wouldn't load another round into the chamber. That's why he ejected the magazine before pulling the slide back and releasing it.
That's correct. He could hit the slide release, then push the mag back up and in after it's gone forward and there would not be a round ready to go.
The mag being part way ejected won't stay in place unless held there.
I would if Steele is holding the pistol in his right hand and turns the pistol on its side. Racking the slide would then eject the bullet upward making it easier to catch.
True. Left or right handed wasn't mentioned. Whilst I dislike descriptions that aren't physically possible, too much detail can kill the pace and distract from the flow of the story. The devil isn't in the details but in how much detail the author includes to both advance the story and keep the gun folk happy.
I would if Steele is holding the pistol in his right hand and turns the pistol on its side.
Uh oh. I assumed the round ejected up. Are you telling me it ejects to the side?
Every automatic pistol that I am aware of ejects the casing up and to the right. Probably somewhere around 45 degrees from vertical. With the pistol on it side held in the right hand, the bullet would be ejected up and to the left which would make it easier to catch with the left hand.
There is a difference in ejection force between an empty casing from a fired round and the ejection force applied to a unspent round being ejected by pulling the slide to the rear. When the slide is pulled to the rear, it is moving very slow compared to its movement when a round is fired. The empty casing is light compared to the unexpended round, so too little ejection force and the round may not clear the receiver.
ETA: I should have said the high speed of the slide to the rear when a round is fired results in the empty casing being ejected upward, to the right, and to the rear.
There is a difference in ejection force between an empty casing from a fired round and the ejection force applied to a unspent round being ejected by pulling the slide to the rear.
Aha. So if he ejected the round by manually sliding the rack it wouldn't come out with as much force.
I assume a righty racks the slide with his left hand so that he's ready to fire with his right. I didn't mention which hand he held the pistol in, but it doesn't matter.
manually sliding the rack
That's my impression from the few automatics I've fired. I have never heard of the slide being called a rack. I have heard of racking the slide, which is manually pulling the slide to the rear and releasing it.
I have never heard of the slide being called a rack.
I typed that backwards. Rack is the verb and slide is the noun so you rack the slide.
manually sliding the rack
Conjures images of a well endowed young lady covered in oil...
At 19 seconds, you will see how it normally happens.
Thank you for taking the time to post a link. Too bad the link shows little but the backs of those involved. No matter, I'm aware of how it 'normally' happens. :)
At 19 seconds, you will see how it normally happens.
about the 20 sec mark you'll get a good view of the mag being released
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QavoGv3hRX4
edit to add: note how easily it slides out. I'm told this is typical of all of the Glocks due to their common design.
here's another vid which shows a round being ejected
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB0ZVZ_aNJI
Thanks.
The second one showed him ejecting the cartridge from the chamber by pulling the slide back. He did it several times and it did not lock open until he forced it to do so.
I can see why the person needs to have unbelievably fast reflexes and motion speed.
btw, I watched some videos last night. One was talking about a problem with Glocks where the hot cartridge ejects backwards into the shooter's face. The blogger thought it had to do with using cheaper ammo, but when he used the best ammo around it still happened. He thinks it's when the gun has fired 1,000 times.
I watched some videos last night. One was talking about a problem with Glocks where the hot cartridge ejects backwards into the shooter's face.
I've not actually handled or used a Glock, thus I can't speak from experience about it. However, I do know any mechanical device needs proper maintenance and care to deal with the sort of wear and tear usage you have. Also, the ejection process of a pistol is one of the most hard wearing areas of a pistol, so it could well be a little too much un-corrected wear could result in all sorts of issues.
One was talking about a problem with Glocks where the hot cartridge ejects backwards into the shooter's face.
Did they mention if this was specifically a problem for left handed shooters?
The AR15/M16 used to have a similar problem. The round ejects backwards and to the right, as the ejection port is on the right side of the weapon and there isn't a separate left handed version with a left side ejection port, so a left handed shooter would get hit with the still hot spent casing.
On the ar15/M16, they solved this problem by adding a deflector just behind the ejection port that deflects the spent casing up and further to the right. With the deflector, rather than striking a left handed shooter in the chest or face, the round will go over their right shoulder.
Did they mention if this was specifically a problem for left handed shooters?
He was shooting right-handed with both a two-hand grip and a single-hand grip. It hit him in the forehead several times. He was making the video to prove the people complaining were wrong and was surprised at the results. (I think he was firing a Gen4 17.)
I know about the M16. I remember in basic training a lefty on the rifle range got the hot cartridge inside his collar and burned his neck.
I remember in basic training a lefty on the rifle range got the hot cartridge inside his collar and burned his neck.
I bet that got him hot under the collar ;)
AJ
Apparently there is a problem with the ejectors on the gen 4 Glocks that causes the casing to face problem.
https://www.randomgunstuff.com/articles/glock-19-gen4-fixing-the-ejection-issue
I had the MC hit the eject button. But he caught the magazine while it was partway out of the handle. I then had him rack the slide to pop out the round in the chamber and then push the magazine back in to seat it. Does that work?
Not really. Most semi-auto pistols are designed so that the slide will lock open if the magazine is out of the pistol or if the magazine is empty.
to avoid being short a round, he would have to:
release and catch the magazine
Eject and catch the round in the chamber.
Load the loose round back in the magazine
push the slide release so it closes on the empty chamber
Then finally re-insert the magazine.
Not an easy procedure to do with only two hands.
push the slide release so it closes on the empty chamber
Didn't know about that step.
Thanks;.
push the slide release so it closes on the empty chamber
Does this work?
With all eyes on Red as he strolled to the corner of the room, Steele covertly pressed the pistol's eject button. He snagged the magazine before it sprang completely out of the handle. When Red leaned against the wall, crossed his arms, and glowered, Steele held the pistol up for all to see. Holding the disengaged magazine in place with his pinky so that it wouldn't fall out, Steele pulled the slide back. All eyes followed the cartridge as it popped out of the chamber. Steele snatched it in mid-air. He pressed the slide release lever to close the slide and, with the chamber now empty, tapped the bottom of the magazine with the meaty part of his palm. Reseating it with a click. It was all done so fast no one had a chance to move. Steele held the round up between his index finger and thumb before stuffing it into his pocket.
"Now where were we?" Steele said. He tucked the gun into the back of his waistband and stared at the four men at the table. "Oh yeah. Am I man enough. Who wants to find out?"
It might be physically possible, but it's tactically stupid.
The second paragraph implies he did this in front of a bunch of tough guys whom he is trying to intimidate.
Clearly he is inviting them into hand to hand combat, but what if one or more of the bad guys is armed?
Clearly he is inviting them into hand to hand combat, but what if one or more of the bad guys is armed?
He is. And he kicks their asses.
Right before that, the guy named Red pulled a shotgun from behind the bar. Steele had his gun drawn and loaded before he got the shotgun halfway up. Steele is an ex-Special Ops guy with a lot of skills. Like Lee Child said about his Jack Reacher character, he wanted a character that doesn't lose.
Steele had his gun drawn and loaded before he got the shotgun halfway up. Steele is an ex-Special Ops guy with a lot of skills.
That's more a matter of raw speed than skill.
That's more a matter of raw speed than skill.
Yes, he has that too. In the first novel he grabs a lady cop's pistol when she draws it and disassembles it in a flash and hands the parts back to her. Like the Jet Li character in one of the Lethal Weapons movies.
Most semi-auto pistols are designed so that the slide will lock open if the magazine is out of the pistol or if the magazine is empty.
They'll lock back if the mag is empty. That's how you know to hit the mag release, quickly put another one in, and hit the slide release so the weapon is charged again.
They don't just automatically lock back if the mag is out.
I thought if a pistol did not have a round in the chamber it can't be fired. I thought you first had to rack the slide to get the round into the chamber before firing.
True, but it's not 'on safe' it's 'not ready for use,' and many would say it's not loaded. Most people speak of a gun as being 'safe' when it's loaded and it has the safety on, what some call 'locked and loaded.'
What don't I know?
Nearly every OTHER semi-automatic pistol has the ability to have a round in the chamber and by flipping up a switch on the side, putting the weapon on safe so that it cannot be fired. My Sig P-238, for example, has this. Glock's don't - if there's a round in the chamber, it's pull the trigger and fire timre.
My Sig also has an external hammer, so it could be loaded, but by allowing the hammer forward, it couldn't fire by pulling the trigger without first pulling the hammer back.
Mind you, I do use the ampersand symbol of & where it's really appropriate like in a formal name such as H & K MP 5, or Malcolm, Dunn, Right, & Goode.
The only time I recall using an ampersand in a story, it was part of a chapter title, in which case it was part of a graphic (in my books). But then I've never been big on legal thrillers (Yawn!)
But as I was saying, if you don't know how to handle symbols in books, you limit what you're capable of expressing. It's really not that hard to figure out.
But as I was saying, if you don't know how to handle symbols in books, you limit what you're capable of expressing. It's really not that hard to figure out.
In general, I agree. I've also had epubs verified to show that I've handled it correctly, and had some of the devices and programs display the file correctly, but also had some other programs have a problem with the ampersand in the text. I've seen the same done with epubs from other people who had a dollar sign that wasn't followed by a number. I see the issue for both as being a fault in the code of the epub reader and not the code or the text of the epub file. However, where i can avoid such issues, I do when the action to deal with it is so simple - why fight when you can avoid it?
If you need to use an ampersand in your html text, just the single symbol will usually work. However, it's good programming practice to use the & amp ; code (without the spaces).
ETA: here's a nice reference chart if you need other symbols: Html character reference
If you need to use an ampersand in your html text, just the single symbol will usually work. However, it's good programming practice to use the & amp ; code (without the spaces).
Ernest's example, and most legal entities, work because they always use "space-Ampersand-space" just as we use on the Forum to prevent the SOL processor from causing trouble. I can't think of any words or expressions (aside from curse substitutes) which embed the ampersand in text. But, at least on FineStories, if you leave the curse in place, the system cleans up the text substitution for you, removing the offensive word while still leaving the meaning intact. (It's a clever bit of coding.)
Ernest's example, and most legal entities, work because they always use "space-Ampersand-space ..."
The spaces make no difference: S&W typed with just SampersandW. It's a problem if you want to be xhtml compatible (i.e. for epubs). In that case you must use the correct symbol code.
ETA: I see the system does indeed replace the single symbol with the correct code (kudo's!) but the fact remains that in plain html just the single ampersand code should work. Again, it's good practice to use the correct html character code instead of the single symbol.
The spaces make no difference: S&W typed with just SampersandW. It's a problem if you want to be xhtml compatible (i.e. for epubs). In that case you must use the correct symbol code.
Most uses of ampersands (legal entities like "Jack Spratt & Sons") sets the ampersand alone, so it wouldn't trigger conversion errors. In Ernest's case, he referenced "H & K MP 5" and "Heckler & Koch".
But my original objection was that it's relatively simple to code the correct html characters, avoiding the issue entirely, in whatever format the book is published/posted as.
While we're diverge to gun safety switches, they were introduced to guns, especially handguns not to stop the person firing the gun by pulling the trigger, but to stop and accidental discharge if it was dropped and it landed on the hammer. Guns without and exposed hammer don't really need a safety switch for that purpose, but manufacturers have included them in many guns, anyway. With the introduction of the rolling block which keeps the hammer away from the cartridge until after the trigger is pulled back a safety switch hasn't been needed for the original purpose. Some modern handguns use a rolling block safety via a two position trigger pull. While you can pull the trigger in one go what happens is as the trigger is pulled back it goes through a position which disengages the in-built safety which is often a rolling block and then goes on to the full back position to release the hammer to fire the gun.
From what I've read of the Glock handguns they have a two position trigger system with an in-built safety as per the original purpose of a safety.
I can't speak for Gen4 Glocks. In my opinion their lawyers screwed them over.
When the Gen1 first came out, there were two problems.
1. The magazine would sometimes stick upon ejection attempts.
This was fixed by a change of material and design of the inner sleeve.
2. Corrosion issues with the plate, firing pin, and spring.
This was fixed by a material change.
In both cases, Glock fixed them free of charge within two years.
Gen2 was mostly an ergonomics change.
Gen3 had more ergonomic changes, and two significant changes with the recoil spring assembly.
Gen4 I'll never own. For that matter, I'm not confident they are even safe. I have G17, G20, G21, and G30 models. None are Gen4. There was a rash of reported kabooms with the Gen4.
I run all +p or in the case of my 17s a mix of +p and +p+. The latter being what it was originally designed for. In fact, the same basic slide and barrel was used for the semi G17, as was used modified in the automatic G18 machine pistol. I still own and shoot the original pair of G17 I purchased in 1988. For endurance, they cannot be beaten.
However, I won't risk a Gen4 given the weakest round I own is +p.
FN, HK, and Sig pretty much own the endurance category for recent production pistols. All of them (glock included) would have had stiff competition with the IMI baby eagle for endurance, if IMI hadn't screwed the pooch by focusing on the desert eagle in US markets.
Gen4 I'll never own. For that matter, I'm not confident they are even safe. I have G17, G20, G21, and G30 models. None are Gen4. There was a rash of reported kabooms with the Gen4.
I typically use 115 grain rounds in mine. Average a full box of 50 every two weeks for the last two years. (Depends on whether I just fire pistols or pistol and rifle.) No issues, didn't even know there was potential of one.
No issues, didn't even know there was potential of one.
Here's the video I saw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbgrioNpJSA
I typically use 115 grain rounds in mine. Average a full box of 50 every two weeks for the last two years. (Depends on whether I just fire pistols or pistol and rifle.) No issues, didn't even know there was potential of one.
I assume you mean a G17 since you called out 115 grain bullet weight. I can further guess they are SAAMI target rounds as that is the most common round in that weight.
You're not specifying much beyond that. NATO would be the next pressure up, but it's most typically a 124 grain. After that we get into the +pressure (+p).
SAAMI = ~35,000 PSI
NATO = ~37,000 PSI
+P = ~ 38-39,000 PSI
+P+ is usually in the 43,000 - 46,000 PSI range
SMG can range up to 54,000, but is usually around 49,000.
As I specified before, I don't run anything less than +P in 9mm. That at an average of 100 rounds a week. I've spent a lot of time working over-seas, but when you bust half a case in a weekend, it doesn't take long to up your average.
I also run Dillion 1050 and 650. I can maintain tighter quality control than factory by doing so.
I lost count on the number of rounds through my 80's era G17. I'm confident it's in high five figures and most likely in low six figures over the years. Not a single round less than +p.
With all that said, I mentioned what I did about kabooms as it was passed to me by people who are otherwise Glock fans like myself.
If your shooting SAAMI or NATO, I doubt you'll ever have a problem. However, don't say you where not warned if you go past that.
If your shooting SAAMI or NATO, I doubt you'll ever have a problem.
I'm not running higher pressure ammo as I'm mostly shooting for fun and to make sure I keep at least some ability to put the rounds into center of mass when the target is closer than 50 - 60 feet. Further than that it's AR time.
And yeah, it's a Glock 17 Gen 4, as I'd mentioned earlier.
