Ran across these a few years ago and had a nice little chuckle of actually seeing these in the wild.



Fast forward to today...ran across this little gem on social media.

http://tribunist.com/news/fish...video/?utm_source=SR

I love the "greater reliability for your Glock" statement. If mine get anymore reliable, they could shoot themselves.

If anything, Maritime spring cups have the potential for reducing the reliability of your Glock. The Maritime cups do not have 360 degree bearing surface in the striker channel and are more likely to fail. These are very small plastic parts. The recessed areas of the cups, which allow water to flow in the striker channel do absolutely nothing beneficial unless the pistol is being fired fully submerged.

My understanding from the GLOCK armorers class was they don't help underwater. They help drain water after it has been submerged.

Very cool video.

quote:

Originally posted by ruger357:
My understanding from the GLOCK armorers class was they don't help underwater. They help drain water after it has been submerged.

Someone is misinformed. The channels in the cups allow water to pass over them when the striker moves forward when firing, preventing hydraulic lock of the striker when completely immersed in water. Take a look at Walther's Navy version of the PPQ. Same thing. The PPQ Navy slide does have an extra hole and it's intended for drainage, but the striker has the same kind of channeled cups as the Glock maritime cups.

I can tell you that my glock is 100% reliable with the maritime cups and 20'000 rounds through them!!! never had a single problem with them.

I've never seen a broken spring cup, so we're speaking theoretically, of course.

The issues of marine spring cup failures revolve primarily around aftermarket sets, which apparently are made to a lesser standard than the original Glock part. The factory parts were never expensive (I still have several sets bought years ago), but a while back Glock started to limit access to factory marine spring cups after bunches of internet yahoos started posting all sorts of inane 'Glock water tests' with their marine cups in place. Companies like Ghost and LWD then came in to fill the void that Glock left, but apparently never got the actual specs on the originals before they started pumping their copies out.

Glock has stated rather bluntly in the past that the marine/maritime cups were NOT created and intended for underwater firing. Their design intent is to allow a previously immersed pistol to fire immediately after its recovery from whatever body of H2O that it was dunked in, without the need to shake out any water accumulation that would've gathered in the striker channel.

In one of my armorer classes, (Gen 3 era), the topic came up and the instructor said to not get them unless your guys really needed them (Marine/Wildlife LEO was the example) and if you did get them, replace them annually during inspection. I'm sure that's not an official position, but it extinguished my interest.

Shooting lion fish looks like fun. Some save-the-world-group will come up with a bag limit ...

Everything is a compromise. If they were as reliable or more so than the normal ones, and assuming the same cost to manufacture, then they would just be the standard part.

Shortcuts are harder; if they were easier, they would just be “the way”.

You will the proper ammo.