# thinking about a glock 23



## jdonovannavy (Jun 9, 2008)

i have recently been looking into getting my first hand gun, (i have shot them before just never owned one), and im really liking the glock 23 40 S&W. i was just curious to see what some of the more experienced people on here thought about this gun. any help would be great!!


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

I carry one. I used to carry a 1911 but the Glock is more dependable. I had a grip reduction done on mine, it makes a big differance. If you buy it, buy many mags as the next probable president is not gun friendly.


----------



## jdonovannavy (Jun 9, 2008)

yeah i feel you on the whole next president thing. are there any con's to this gun that you have seen? i shot a few boxes of ammo through it and if fires very nice. thanks!


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

If I didn't have my G27, I'd have the G23.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

The .40 Glocks are implicated in more ka-Booms than the other calibers. This is partially because of the unsupported chamber design, but also largely because .40 Glocks are the most popular and widely-used service pistols in America.

Some people don't like the trigger, but I often find that's because they haven't put in the time to master the trigger reset, or simply don't know that they should be "riding the link." The reset itself is the best on the market after the 1911, at least among popular pistols, being firm and short.

Excellent low bore axis minimizes muzzle flip compared to most competing pistols. Mags and holsters are everywhere, as are trained armorers.

If I wanted a mid-sized Glock, I'd get a 19 rather than the 23, but some people don't like 9mms. A 23 is the next best thing.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> This is partially because of the unsupported chamber design


I wonder why Glock fails to address this design vulnerability. Seems a responsible thing to do and of more value than putting stupid finger spreading grooves on an already blocky grip.



Mike Barham said:


> The reset itself is the best on the market after the 1911


You might want to try a broken in Walther P99 QA - Quick Action trigger's short pull and quick reset allow fast followup shots. Feel is positive without the Glock mush.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I have only tried a new Walther, not broken in. I do prefer the "feel" of the Glock to the Walther, though that is probably mainly because I am habituated to it. But I did qualify my statement by saying "among popular pistols" and the P99 isn't really a common pistol. It's also hard to find mags, holsters, and armorers for the Walthers compared to Glocks. I am lazy and like things to be easy and convenient. :mrgreen:

Like many things - such as the brigades of soldiers who are supposedly screaming for 1911s and M14s - I suspect the ka-Boom problem is bigger on the Internet than it is in real life. If this were some widespread epidemic, Glock would fix it for liability reasons alone. Anyway, ka-Booms with 9mms are virtually unheard of, though perhaps not totally nonexistent, which is yet another reason to choose 9mm over .40.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Anyway, ka-Booms with 9mms are virtually unheard of, though perhaps not totally nonexistent, which is yet another reason to choose 9mm over .40.


Don't forget that the chamber walls are almost twice as thick on the 9mm so it is stronger too. It is surely possible to kB! a 9 X 19mm&#8230; but you gotta try harder.



Todd Louis Green said:


> At the 2S&W IDPA Winter Championship this past Saturday (28 February2004 ) I personally saw a Glock Model 34 with its barrel split top from bottom all the way through the breech. The kB! occurred in front of many witnesses. The shooter was using factory PMC practice ammo.
> 
> I had my Canon D10 with me but felt it would have appeared unprofessional to ask for some photos or try to get contact info for the owner.
> 
> Anyway, that's the first 9 x 19mm Glock kB! I've ever seen, and with factory ammo no less!


Many .40 are basically bored out 9mms. Its a cheap way of supporting another caliber without the expense of a ground up design. Unfortunately, this leaves a lot less material around the chamber and barrel and subsequently a weaker design. This compromised design alone is good reason to avoid .40 cal


----------



## jeb21 (Jun 10, 2008)

I have the 23 and I really like it. I have used it as a competition gun for about a year. No issues at all. I also use the 23 as a farm gun and as one of the weapons I carry for CCW.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

It is possible that the Glock 34 shoot in TLG's post had allowed lead to accrue in the barrel. Anyway, I do not think Glock 9mms blow up any more than any other gun. I've also seen nuked 1911s, P35s, Berettas, Five-seveNs, and countless revolvers.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> This is partially because of the unsupported chamber design


If Glock's unsupported chambers increase vulnerability to kB!, then a reasonable person would only select weapons with a fully supported chamber.



Mike Barham said:


> ...largely because .40 Glocks are the most popular and widely-used service pistols in America.


George W. Bush was the most popular and widely voted for Presidential candidate of 2004. Popularity doesn't always indicate a good choice.


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

Use quality factory ammo in the 40 caliber Glocks and you should never have an issue. If you want to shoot reloads, or lead, get an aftermarket barrel. Never had a KB in my 40 cal Glocks, but I did have one in the 9mm G17 using factory reloads. Side split on the case, blew out the magazine, and burnt the top of my index finger where the gases came out the side around the mag release cutout. Did it stop me from loving my Glocks? No. How many thousand rounds have I shot through my Glocks? No telling, but alot. Never a problem with new factory ammo.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> If Glock's unsupported chambers increase vulnerability to kB!, then a reasonable person would only select weapons with a fully supported chamber.


That depends. Like every other gun, Glocks are compromises. I don't think it's unreasonable to trade the very remote chance of a ka-Boom for the Glock's manifold advantages in ease of shooting, commonality of accessories, ease of finding armorers, and general convenience of owning.

I'm sitting here looking at ATF pistol import data for the last ten years. It shows that over 2.5 million pistols have been imported from Austria since 1998. Does anyone doubt that the vast majority of these were Glocks? .40 is Glock's best selling chambering in the US.

For the sake of argument, then, let's say that only 75% of these Austrian pistols are Glocks (surely an underestimate). That's about 1.9 million Glocks.

Let's further assume that only 25% of these are .40s (again, surely an underestimate). That's almost 500,000 .40 caliber Glocks.

Of this half a million, how many have ka-Boomed? Even if it's 1,000 (950 of which haven't shown up on the Internet), that's only one fifth of one percent of the .40 Glocks in the US. _And this is weighting everything as far as can reasonably be weighted against Glock._



> George W. Bush was the most popular and widely voted for Presidential candidate of 2004. Popularity doesn't always indicate a good choice.


Agreed, and I've never said Glocks are for everyone. There are many good pistols out there. But none of them offer the convenience of Glock ownership simply because they are not as popular.


----------



## USAFgsm (Dec 18, 2006)

I carry a Glock 23 every day and I love it. Its hard telling how many rounds i've put through it at the range and it has never malfunctioned in any way whatsoever. It is accurate and reliable, and the size of the 19/23 is perfect for me. It feels good in my hand, and I can conceal it easily under just a Tshirt, and I'm not a big guy (about 140 lbs).


----------



## rvl8 (Jun 4, 2008)

submoa said:


> George W. Bush was the most popular and widely voted for Presidential candidate of 2004. Popularity doesn't always indicate a good choice.


maybe if you live in florida...


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to trade the very remote chance of a ka-Boom for the Glock's manifold advantages in ease of shooting, commonality of accessories, ease of finding armorers, and general convenience of owning.


Pam Anderson is rich and generally considered attractive. There are those who would not think it unreasonable to run the known risk of Hepatitis to posess such a woman for her manifold advantages.

Then again, duh.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

submoa said:


> Pam Anderson is rich and generally considered attractive. There are those who would not think it unreasonable to run the known risk of Hepatitis to posess such a woman for her manifold advantages.
> 
> Then again, duh.


Good example,except one is a remote chancewhile the other is virtually a sure thing.:smt082


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

How in the world did we get here?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Ram Rod said:


> How in the world did we get here?


Because of Unwritten Law #1: Every HGF thread about Glocks has to mention unsupported chambers and ka-Booms, no matter how uncommon they are and how many millions of Glocks have never had so much as a simple malfunction, never mind a ka-Boom.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Because of Unwritten Law #1: Every HGF thread about Glocks has to mention unsupported chambers and ka-Booms, no matter how uncommon they are and how many millions of Glocks have never had so much as a simple malfunction, never mind a ka-Boom.


Then cut the rhetoric and just tell us. Unsupported chambers. Good or Bad?


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

I was talking about the Pam Anderson thing.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Not as good as a fully supported chamber, but hardly the deathtrap implied by Glock bashers, either. The fact that literally hundreds of thousands of .40 Glocks have been in highly successful service for well over a decade would seem to me to easily override the very miniscule chance of a ka-Boom.

It's not as if Glocks are the only guns that ever blow up. You just hear about them more because there are so many more Glocks in use than virtually anything else. And there are reasons Glocks are so popular, whether or not they are your personal preference.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> It's not as if Glocks are the only guns that ever blow up. You just hear about them more because there are so many more Glocks in use than virtually anything else. And there are reasons Glocks are so popular, whether or not they are your personal preference.


I had a friend blow up a S&W 4006 with store bought rounds. I have seen several S&W revolvers that were blown up. Perhaps we should avoid buying any S&W? Would this include the M&P, 1911, Or P99?

Are you aware that the 1911 has had a unsupported chamber since its inception in 1905? Shall we quit purchasing them?


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

Here's a link to one guys take on why some guns blow up.

http://www.policeandsecuritynews.com/MayJun04/WhyGunsBlowUp.htm


----------



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

Very happy with mine:









The only con is that people may not like Glocks in general. This is a great carry gun, accurate and big bore tube.

The .40S&W recoil in a 4" barrel will pop up. But for me, it's more for close combat...even though I've shot it accurately at 25 yards.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Not as good as a fully supported chamber


An unsupported chamber has a gap around the case, that in higher pressure loads can allow the case to swell, weakening the case's strength.

The .40cal glock barrel is essentially a bored out 9mm. This removal of material gives a .40 half the chamber wall thickness of a 9mm. Thinner chamber walls = *weaker chamber*. You can see the lack of support and the thinner walls below.










Glock's response to all the kB! issues is that they were caused by overpressure (+P) rounds. The Glock manual states to use standard factory ammo. Keep that in mind the next time you suggest/recommend +Ps.



Old Padawan said:


> Are you aware that the 1911 has had a unsupported chamber since its inception in 1905? Shall we quit purchasing them?


Are you aware SAAMI sets the maximum case pressure for .45 ACP at 21,000 CUP vs 35,000 CUP for 40S&W? 
Are you also aware that the chamber wall on a 1911 is over twice as thick as in Glock's .40?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Most (though not all) of the ka-Booms I've seen documented didn't involve the barrel/chamber bursting, so I am not sure the thickness of the chamber walls is the real root of the issue. Normally, the case bursts and most of the gas shoots out through the mag well, blowing out the magazine but rarely injuring the shooter. 

I am not aware of a SAAMI spec for a +P .40, though there are some smaller companies using this designation, perhaps for marketing purposes. I think we are all aware that some handloaders routinely exceed SAAMI specs on their handloads, but any resulting ka-Booms are their fault, not the gun manufacturer's. I have never recommended +P .40 ammo.

I do not accept that any reputable manufacturer, Glock or otherwise, would produce for our exceedingly litigious society any pistol they knew to be dangerous with correct factory ammo meeting SAAMI specs.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

submoa said:


> Are you aware SAAMI sets the maximum case pressure for .45 ACP at 21,000 CUP vs 35,000 CUP for 40S&W?
> Are you also aware that the chamber wall on a 1911 is over twice as thick as in Glock's .40?


Yes I am aware of the pressure differences between .45 and .40. But wasn't your question regarding an unsupported Chamber?


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

jdonovannavy,
There is nothing wrong with the .40 Glocks. Glock sells WAAAAY to many .40 cal pistols in our litigious society for this to be an issue. It makes for heated debate just like choosing the “right” round to carry for self-defense. No one that tells you to not to buy a Glock based on KaBoom is able to offer any kind of statistic to back up his or her argument. 

I have owned a Glock 22, 23, 27 in .40. I still own the 23. I purchased it from a Police trade in. It was well shot. I have put a couple of thousand rounds through the gun. It goes Bang and not KaBoom. 

I carry the gun because it works. I prefer 1911s, but I carry a glock. I own 3 1911s, but I carry a Glock. Until recently I shot three times a month expending 200 – 500 rounds per session (not all .40), I carry a Glock .40.

This is the gun I chose. Choose the gun that suits you but don’t let people that have no factual data sway you from a quality pistol be it an HK, S&W, Colt, or even a Glock.


----------



## Spartan (Jan 1, 2007)

Are there as many/ any issues with the 357sig Glocks?


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Most (though not all) of the ka-Booms I've seen documented didn't involve the barrel/chamber bursting, so I am not sure the thickness of the chamber walls is the real root of the issue.


Documented kB!s in http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html show barrel/chamber bursts.










































Mike Barham said:


> I have never recommended +P .40 ammo.


My comment was caution against recommending +P in unsupported chambered Glocks period. Per your comment in http://www.handgunforum.net/showpost.php?p=30611&postcount=5



Mike Barham said:


> Glock 26 loaded with Golden Saber +P is current primary,





Mike Barham said:


> I do not accept that any reputable manufacturer, Glock or otherwise, would produce for our exceedingly litigious society any pistol they knew to be dangerous with correct factory ammo meeting SAAMI specs.


Glock kB!s have been documented using standard pressure .40cal factory rounds:



Ken Hackathorn said:


> In various handgun courses over the years I have personally witnessed five (5!) kB!s, all with factory-new .40 S&W ammo. Yes, two were with the earlier Federal 165-grain Hydra-Shok, but I've also seen it happen with 180-grain Winchester Ranger and 155-grain Speer Gold Dot HPs





Old Padawan said:


> Yes I am aware of the pressure differences between .45 and .40. But wasn't your question regarding an unsupported Chamber?


*Old Padawan* was sarcastically suggesting that the logic against unsupported Glock chambers was flawed since 1911s have unsupported chambers.

My point is that the 1911 is a more acceptable design than Glock .40 since since case pressure of a standard .40 round is almost double .45 ACP, yet the chamber wall in the Glock is half as thick. Glock attempts to uses a weaker chamber to contain a higher pressure round vs. the 1911.

There are actually 3 design "features" in Glocks in calibers greater than 9mm that make them vulnerable to kB!

Unsupported chamber
Thin/weak chamber walls
Disconnector that allows Glocks to fire out of battery​
I believe that no one disputes these "features" or the fact that they are less than desirable. If you are spending $100s on a tool you are staking your life on, does it make sense to do so knowing that the tool has less than desirable features that could place you at risk?

The only remaining argument remaining against common sense is the "millions sold / few kB!" statistics. There are also statistics that say of the millions of handgun owners, very few will ever need use their weapon in self defense, so why get a gun? Bottom line, while the chance of a kB! may be low, it is non-zero and there are known reasons for Glocks to be vulnerable to kB!

You can make the Glock less vulnerable to kB! by exclusively using standard pressure factory ammo, never using lead bullets, and replacing the barrel with a fully supported one from BarSto, Briley, Jarvis or Wilson.

FWIW SA XD uses a fully supported barrel.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Old Padawan was answering your question. 
Your question was quoted in full (unlike most of your quotes I m might add) it in no way mentioned Glock, I quote you “Then cut the rhetoric and just tell us. Unsupported chambers. Good or Bad?” Perhaps you should have been more specific. If you were speaking of Glocks the answer is Good, proven design.

Shall we start a thread on blown up gun photos? Your photos while graphic do not prove a problem. What was the load? Was the barrel plugged? Was there abuse of some sort? Of this production lot was there a known problem? No one has said that the guns do not blow up. ANY GUN WILL BLOW UP under the proper circumstances. 

There are many statistics to quote re guns and violence. Weather they are interpreted by the right or left to skew the result is not relative to your point as they are statistics.

My point to you is your complete LACK OF STATISTICS. Your argument lacks any factual basis for a preference of one gun versus another as related to a possible dramatic failure such as a kaboom.

If the .40 cal Glocks had a problem, they would have had recalls similar to the Ruger SR9.


----------



## jdonovannavy (Jun 9, 2008)

thanks for all of the responses everyone. as for the kaboom discussion i have looked into it a little and im still pretty comforatable buying the 23. a company as big as glock that has these guns distributed to a wide spread amount of law enforcement (in my opinion) would have done some sort of recall if the percentage of guns that failed was high enough. thank you all for your input, and please if you have any more comments feel free to add. Thanks!


----------



## Glockamania® (Dec 21, 2006)

jdonovannavy said:


> thanks for all of the responses everyone. as for the kaboom discussion i have looked into it a little and im still pretty comforatable buying the 23... Thanks!


Great choice!!! Let us know what you think of it once you get it...don't forget the pics!!!


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Old Padawan said:


> If the .40 cal Glocks had a problem, they would have had recalls similar to the Ruger SR9.


Ruger recalled their SR9s voluntarily. This would be an honest manufacturer admitting having made a mistake and doing what they can to serve their customers. By your own method, how many SR9 ADs have been reported?

On the other hand, the lack of recalls on .40 cal Glocks is more indicative of the arrogance that allows claims of 'perfection.'


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

submoa said:


> Ruger recalled their SR9s voluntarily. This would be an honest manufacturer admitting having made a mistake and doing what they can to serve their customers. By your own method, how many SR9 ADs have been reported?
> 
> On the other hand, the lack of recalls on .40 cal Glocks is more indicative of the arrogance that allows claims of 'perfection.'


My methods are irrelevant, as I didn't advise not to purchase a product due to an unsubstantiated defect.
Is your implication that Glock is dishonest? Isn't it odd that a dishonest company selling an unsafe factory pistol has a commanding lead in the law enforcement agencies across America?

I note the following add from the Walther website regarding the Walther P99. "The new P99 compact is the ideal compliment to the P99 full size line of pistols. Perfect for concealed carry or as a backup weapon for law enforcement."

I guess that body style and carry position have nothing to do with it. All you need is a P99. I assume you feel this is arrogance as well?

Claiming to be perfection is an add slogan not arrogance.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

jdonovannavy said:


> thanks for all of the responses everyone. as for the kaboom discussion i have looked into it a little and im still pretty comforatable buying the 23. a company as big as glock that has these guns distributed to a wide spread amount of law enforcement (in my opinion) would have done some sort of recall if the percentage of guns that failed was high enough. thank you all for your input, and please if you have any more comments feel free to add. Thanks!


Congratulations on a good purchase decision. Glock is a fine firearm.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Old Padawan said:


> Is your implication that Glock is dishonest?


Decide for yourself.

Glock has discovered in 2004 a serious structual problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in 1998 after failing an INS abuse test. Apparently the longer rails were prone to excessive "torque" when the pistols got hot, causing the slides to crack in that area. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, causing some rear rails to break off the gun. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.

Glock went to the FBI and told them about this problem and quietly replaced over 700 frames. They did not tell their other customers about this problem. This problem affected ALL models of Glocks and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS. What about the DC Police with 4000 guns, NYPD with 35000 guns?



jdonovannavy said:


> a company as big as glock that has these guns distributed to a wide spread amount of law enforcement (in my opinion) would have done some sort of recall if the percentage of guns that failed was high enough


Well yes, there has been one recall:



GLOCK recall said:


> Anyone having either a Model 26 or Model 27 with a serial number utilizing the following alpha-prefix: DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW or DKX, your guide rod is defective. According to Glock, the rods were not tempered correctly. If you have one of these guns, call 1 (888) 569-6830 to get a replacement rod. This number was been set up specifically for the replacement of the rods.


Petaluma PD (CA) was reported to have had two guide rods break at their range in late March 2000, just about the time that Glock acknowledged the seriousness of the problem.



NYPD Advisory said:


> Effective 20 February 2003 all Glock Model 26 pistols in the E serial range of the current "non-recall" have been banned from carry by NYPD MOS. They are instructed to cease carrying the weapon and contact the Firearms Training Section for instructions concerning replacement.


This is not the first problem NYPD has had with Glock. The following could have been better handled.



Sean L. McMahon said:


> http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html
> "Phase Three Malfunction? Never heard of it!"
> So begins the typical conversation about an annoying gremlin that has been irritating the New York City Police Department Firearms and Tactics Section (FTS) and Glock, Inc. for approximately six years. When NYPD began experiencing a specific type of malfunction, apparently endemic to the Glock Model 19 service weapon, sometime in 1996, the FTS coined the term "Phase Three" to identify this particular non-reducible stoppage, described as basically a jam where a fired casing is partially extracted, the case rim still solidly lodged under the extractor with the mouth of the casing firmly wedged against the barrel hood. The casing is not vertical in position as in a stovepipe malfunction, but rather horizontal, exactly on the same plane as would be a cartridge loaded in the chamber but higher.
> 
> ...


It pays to dig a little deeper into the actual experiences LE has with a product before using LE purchase as a guide for yourself.

FWIW, my preferred duty sidearm is a 1911 preferably w/o MIM or FPB.


----------



## wjh2657 (Jun 18, 2008)

It was my understanding that Third Generation .40 Glocks have more support in the chamber area designed in. I have seen pictures of the 3rd gen barrel with a BARSTO and the Glock barrel had more support than the BARSTO. Dooes anybody have any real dope on this. (Please no conjecture or opinions, need measurements of personal experience with factory people who would know.) I have a third generation G23 and I would really like to know.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I found this to be an interesting thread from a few years ago. Thought it would be good to discuss for those interested.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

submoa said:


> Decide for yourself.
> 
> Glock has discovered in 2004 a serious structual problem with their guns. They redesigned their rear slide rails many years ago to make them longer, but for some reason shortened them again in 1998 after failing an INS abuse test. Apparently the longer rails were prone to excessive "torque" when the pistols got hot, causing the slides to crack in that area. This shorter rail, coupled with some bad steel and a machine that stamped the rails incorrectly, causing some rear rails to break off the gun. When the rail breaks, it can lock up the gun. Not a good thing in a gunfight.
> 
> ...


Great read, but FWIW, I know one officer who carried a 1911 for years until it started jamming on him. He lost confidence in it and bought a Sig Sauer P226 9mm for duty use.


----------



## Lee Hunter (May 25, 2011)

Yes, this thread is a bit dated. But, what the heck, here is my two cents worth for the OP, if they haven't already done it: Just buy a Glock 23 GEN 4. You won't regret it... I did. And I don't... Nuff said.


----------



## BZimm (Feb 29, 2016)

That's quite the discussion; I hung on every word. I just brought home a Gen 4 Model 23. I was aware of the kaboom thing and the spring thing when I made the purchase and I hope to the Lord above we'll be ok.


----------



## boatdoc173 (Mar 15, 2014)

my wife and I started with glock 23s and aberetta fs. she was really good with the glock 23. I learned to like glocks--it took time

the best thing about the 23 is that you can get a conversion barrel(I used lonewolf--LOVE IT) and shoot 9mm while you learn you gun. swap barrels only(no mag swap or spring swap needed) and you have a glock 23 again

good choice goo dluck

welcome to glock world


----------

