Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!dobbs.Eng.Sun.COM
From: fiddler@dobbs.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: guns advertized as "functioning reliably underwater"?
Message-ID: <34782@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 22 May 91 20:32:11 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Lines: 26
Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu

In article <34737@mimsy.umd.edu> n9020351@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
+
+               Re:  Concealed carry piece for scuba divers 
+
+  I've heard some guns advertized as "functioning reliably underwater",
+I think the Glock was one of these and also CZ 99 might have been one.

Somewhere I have areview of the Glock 17 where the writer called Glock
on their claim that the 17 laughed off being submerged for long periods.

He put the gun in a large ziploc bag filled with sea water and left it
there for something longer than a week.

When done, he shook it out, stripped it down, rinsed it out, and ran a
patch through the bore.  After assembly, the thing took up shooting just
like it had before.  No trace of corrosion anywhere.

(Actually, I think a more severe test of corrosion resistance would have
been to dip it in salt water and then let it sit in air for a while.  A
few cycles like this should be pretty effective.)

Not that I'd treat any equipment of *mine* like that...

	seh

p.s.  No, the magazine that ran the article was not SOF.