If the Glock barrels are cold-hammer forged, why is it easier and quicker to do polygon rifling than conventional lands and grooves. I watched a cold-hammer process at SIG, Neuhausen Rhine Falls, knocking out sturmgewehr 57 barrels (quite interesting as I could not understand how the 12" or so round billet with a hole down the middle would become a 24" or so rifle barrel with grenade launching bumps and the start of an integral flash-hider on it, ignorant me) and the machine does all the work, and it seemed pretty fast to me.
Just curious. I am not an engineer, and know little about these things. However, I can’t see why one would be any harder for a big machine to do than the other.
Vlad - that’s the whole point. There is no problem to cure. Hence, “an interesting solution to a non-existing problem.” I have fired Glocks and they are decent pistols I suppose (I dislike them intensely, but objectively, concede they are a good handgun), but they are not one bit more accurate than many fine pistols with conventional rifling, that do not have a problem with bullet material, and not as accurate as some. My Colts work flawlessly and are accurate, as is my 1935-designed Browning. Perfect functioning and accuracy - hmmm, what else do we need? While this is not the place to argue merits of handguns, I do not see where any particularly great advancements have been made in self-loading pistols in about 100 years.
We have advanced greatly in the shapes of levers, the size and shape of sights, and notions about correct trigger pulls, but in basic design, I don’t see any startling achievements in any of the so-called modern pistols, and many are, in my opinion, regressive in one way or another, although not the better ones.