Waste glass (WG), as a nonbiodegradable material, poses a threat to environmental protection. The reuse of WG as a raw material to replace cement or aggregate in concrete production is gaining attention for recycling purposes. However, the optimal proportion of WG in concrete mixtures and its particle size distribution are hard to determine. Large glass particles are prone to leading to the undesirable alkali–silica reaction (ASR) in concrete. Therefore, in this study, cement and aggregate in concrete mixtures are partially replaced by combinations of glass powder (<30 μm) and glass beads (0.2–1.7 mm), respectively. Glass concretes (GCs) containing waste glass at various replacement ratios (0, 10, 15, 20, and 30%) are prepared, and their flowability and compressive strength are evaluated and compared. Finally, steel tubes filled by ordinary concrete (OCFSTs) and steel tubes filled by glass concrete (GCFSTs) are fabricated and tested in axial compression. The test results show that the slump and slump flow increase when the replacement ratio is lower than 20%, and the maximum slump value (250 mm) is achieved for concrete with the use of 20% waste glass. With regard to compressive strength, as the glass replacement percentage is increased, the compressive strength of GC continues to reduce. The maximum decrease of compressive strength (merely 70% of compressive strength for original concrete) is observed in GC mixed with 20% glass, which might be attributed to the smooth surface of glass, consequently weakening the interfacial bond strength between the glass and matrix. In terms of the bearing capacity of GCFSTs, the axial compressive strength of GCFSTs decreases as more GC is used. However, no obvious reduction is observed compared to OCFSTs (less than 10% for GCFSTs containing 30% GP). Moreover, GCFSTs show greater (no less than 25% more) deformational ability at peak strength over OCFST columns, demonstrating that GC is a promising alternative for normal concrete. Finally, the feasibility of existing design codes (AISC, EC4, and GB50936-2014) to assess the bearing capacity of GCFSTs is evaluated by comparing the test and calculated results. The current codes, in general, give a conservative prediction and EC4 provides the closest value (predicted to experimental peak load ratio is 0.9).