Want Your Ejection Problems Solved? Listen to Dave. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Want Your Ejection Problems Solved? Listen to Dave.


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

3/4Flap
02-19-2012, 17:53
DaveKnowlin's fix may be The Fix.

I just did it and then ran out the back door and fired 4 rounds into the dirst right-handed. All 4 empties went straight out to the right.

Gotta shoot some more, but this looks promising.

kamonjj
02-19-2012, 17:56
details?

MarkCO
02-19-2012, 18:08
OP said he would explain, so opened...

bentbiker
02-19-2012, 18:39
Are you talking about ejections in a G30? http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18602457&postcount=6

3/4Flap
02-19-2012, 18:42
Referenced here;

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1402918

The fix involves removal of the extractor and reduction of the step that limits extractor travel inward, allowing the extractor to swing inward and maintain tension on the case for what must be just a micro-second of extra time, which effects ejection.

The jury is not back in yet on my pistol but initial examination of the ejection pattern of the 4 RWS rounds I fired into the dirt outside the house was dramatically different than previously; all went straight out to the side. This from a gun that is increasingly tossing them all over...including at my face.

Maybe a good gun to experiment on as Glock told me they have experienced some issues with "L" barrels in regular G17's like mine, whereby they encourage stouter loads to insure adequate ejection. So far I have never experienced a JAM in this pistol, but the degrading of ejection PATTERN has me annoyed. I might make a jaunto the range tomorrow and shoot it some more. wife bought me some WWB 115 yesterday when she made the trip to the Big City for supplies so we'll see what that junk does.

I hope Dave weighs in, also.

Radian
02-19-2012, 18:44
Speer Lawman and a hat? CoC Trainers, snug necked t shirts, ISMI 15lb springs...

3/4Flap
02-19-2012, 18:50
PS: I used a couple jeweler's files and a hard stone.

ENTIRELY what I did was;

1} Cleaned up the extractor claw a bit to allow better bite of the case.
2} Polished both sides of the extractor.
3} Took some material off the shoulder/step whatever you call it. Don't ask how much. Due to the angles it was not easy to gauge the start dimension with my calipers. I aimed at Dave's nominal .005". I know I took some material off. Not alot.

Now, since the Glock extractor acts in the same way as a Mauser 98 extractor more-or-less, you want to make sure the radius of the cartridge case head does not but against the bottom of the presented extractor during feeding. Should ride up nicely UNDER the extractor as the round rises.

NucPhysics
02-19-2012, 18:54
PS: I used a couple jeweler's files and a hard stone.

ENTIRELY what I did was;

1} Cleaned up the extractor claw a bit to allow better bite of the case.
2} Polished both sides of the extractor.
3} Took some material off the shoulder/step whatever you call it. Don't ask how much. Due to the angles it was not easy to gauge the start dimension with my calipers. I aimed at Dave's nominal .005". I know I took some material off. Not alot.

Now, since the Glock extractor acts in the same way as a Mauser 98 extractor more-or-less, you want to make sure the radius of the cartridge case head does not but against the bottom of the presented extractor during feeding. Should ride up nicely UNDER the extractor as the round rises.

I thought you just exchanged it for a Walther PPQ...just kidding:wavey:

SCSU74
02-19-2012, 19:06
PS: I used a couple jeweler's files and a hard stone.

ENTIRELY what I did was;

1} Cleaned up the extractor claw a bit to allow better bite of the case.
2} Polished both sides of the extractor.
3} Took some material off the shoulder/step whatever you call it. Don't ask how much. Due to the angles it was not easy to gauge the start dimension with my calipers. I aimed at Dave's nominal .005". I know I took some material off. Not alot.

Now, since the Glock extractor acts in the same way as a Mauser 98 extractor more-or-less, you want to make sure the radius of the cartridge case head does not but against the bottom of the presented extractor during feeding. Should ride up nicely UNDER the extractor as the round rises.

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe order another extractor before taking these steps...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

INEEDMILK
02-19-2012, 19:11
Can we get some pics?

bentbiker
02-19-2012, 19:37
3/4 Flap, I sure wish you'd done your experiment in two stages -- first with polishing the top and bottom surfaces and then the reduction to the step that limits how far inward the extractor rotates. I say that because many people have had success by just polishing the top and bottom (and sometimes the pivot "cone"). I don't remember anyone ever touching the step, but I welcome people trying different things. As much as I would like to believe the step is an issue, since the extractors are clearly rotated out with a cartridge in the chamber vs an empty chamber, the only affect of the step is during loading, as you pointed out, and when it again touches during extraction. While the removal of .005" would theoretically allow pressure for some extra time, I would think it to be way less than minuscule. I'd be very suspicious that your success, if it continues, is the result of freeing up the extractor by polishing the two surfaces, and cleaning up the claw.

Please keep us up to date on your further testing. I could well be following in your footsteps in the next few days.

Radian
02-19-2012, 19:43
for sure on the spare. good thing is they are el cheapo part.Sounds like a good idea. Maybe order another extractor before taking these steps...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

3/4Flap
02-19-2012, 19:49
bentbiker;

I tho''t somebody might notice....

I wanted to be honest and tell exactly what I did. As for the actual removal of .005 well, that is a guess. It was noticeable but I had trouble measuring it. The grip on the cases can be felt as different in hand cycling the action.

Cases do not come out with necessarily more force but rather with more repeateddirection.

You may be right, but I figured it was worth the suggestion. Like Radian says, the part is cheap.



Too early to speak with any authority, but in theory it should benefit the grab on the case. I have seen this effect other pistols. So why not the Glock...

Dave Nowlin
02-19-2012, 22:21
My thought, and it is only theory at this point, is that if the extractor holds the round more firmly as it strikes the ejector then the ejection will be more predictable. I believe previous to my rework the case head wasn't held firmly enough to cause a consistent hit on the case head by the ejector. As more people try this fix we may figure out how to solve the brass in the head issue. I don't believe Glock has figured it out so maybe we can help.

3/4Flap
02-20-2012, 07:28
Thanks, Dave.

It should be added that the lowering of the shoulder does not impact case head tension while the extractor is grabbing the widest part of the case head, but rather, it MAINTAINS some form of hold on the case for longer as/if the case head shifts up during cycling of the action.

And here is my theory;

We are generally and most commonly discussing erratic ejection, not loss of extraction. Sometimes there are jams but themain beef seems to be that cases get tossed here and there and sometimes down your underwear... I submit that erratic ejection may be caused by erratic EXTRACTION or more accurately, erratic control of the case during the drawing back of the slide before the case hits the ejector.

The ability of the extractor to maintain tension on the case whether the case is dead center of the breech face or slightly north or south of center MIGHT allow more consistent ejection. That is the goal, and with the first few rounds from my gun I fired it seemed to be the case.

We'll see. Got dumped on with snow again last night and might pack up the sled and ski up to the range for more testing with a variety of ammo.

What we want is for the slide to maintain consistent grab on the case head all the way thru the rearward draw of the slide until the ejector strikes the case head. Anything that can help achieve this should in theory allow more consistent directioning of the case as it leaves the bolt face region.

Picture a baseball being struck in the sweet spot of the bat. Same swing, same spot, same direction. Now, picture the ball striking here and there, sometimes close to the grip, other times right near the end of the bat. Ball flies up, down, this or thataway.

That is the best example I can find of what is going on in the cycling of a semiautomatic gun mechanism vis-s-vis extraction and ejection.

Now, the fix MAY not be 100% related to EXTRACTOR design.

What we haven't discussed is what has happened to SLIDE production. Is there a differing shoulder inside the slide on new model G's? Did a thicker finish in combination with a slightly larger/taller shoulder occur in recent slide production? That, too, could be the reason, and IMO could be the reason some report no change in performance regardless of extractor/ejector. conjecture, to be sure, but who knows.

I will not accept continued performance as it is. I'll get it fixed in my gun whether Glock does it or I do it or I'll get rid of the gun. What works for mine might work for others' guns, might not, but the purpose of the thread here is to address an issue that seems to be left out of the current "accepted" process of parts-swapping.

Usta be that gunsmiths were gun SMITHS. We all know that old-school ways are about kicking their last, and the new "armorer" is for the most part not a gunsmith but rather a "parts swapper". This works in military circles and is of course a very good thing due to the availability of parts, etc. But let's not forget the fixes that come about thru good old trial, error and the careful use of the tools of the trade. For me I have few options. No "Glock Armorer" about, and a shop full of gunsmithing and knifemaking hand tools...

Good luck, all.

M&P15T
02-20-2012, 07:35
I swear, if this simple fix is the answer, someone should be charging GLOCK for it.

3/4Flap
02-20-2012, 07:45
True.

But look, this is the way of the world.

Back when I was selling guns we were jobbers for a number of higher-end gunmakers at the time. We saw the cocamameyiest stuff come thru.

Remember when S&W revolver barrels were unscrewing? And when SAKO shipped rifles with Rockwell divits on the TOP of the barrels? How about Heym SR20 bolt handles that fell off...and sent their guns out with trigger mechs fitted with hardwarestore washers...? Overpriced Valmet semiautos with the scope mounts that sloshed around and utterly refused to zero? I've seen those and many others.

Look, we all know it; Gun companies make guns to sell them. That is the reason they get made. No one is doing ME a favor by providing a service called "Gun Making". The market decides...{or should, Herr Obama}...what products make it or not. So the market gets involved.

Gun engineers get paid to go to work and complete "projects". Sometimes the project is actually a success!

And MANY ideas come from the market and get incorporated into the production of guns...cars...refridgerators...etc...

Yeah, I think it could be this easy. Maybe not. Maybe so.

Now think of it this way;

The ultimate creative idea gun fix was provided by Herr Glock himself. Not a gunmaker, not even a gun "guy" as far as I know, he looked at ways to fix common "problems" and came up with the Glock itself! Now Gaston needs a little help and we can try our best to give it to him.

jw38
02-20-2012, 07:49
Taking my 19, 23 and 27 apart to clean up the extractors. Thanks for the info. Best "new" news on GT in sometime.

rootpass
02-20-2012, 08:15
Didn't TexasPO offer this suggestion awhile back with great success? I think you are all on to something.

3/4Flap
02-20-2012, 08:27
Didn't TexasPO offer this suggestion awhile back with great success? I think you are all on to something.

I don't recall or didn't see the thread but it has not been repeatedly treated here even tho the front page is JAMMED with a continuous and unending flow of "My Glock don't work right" threads.

Who knows, maybe a Glock Armorer would possess respected status enough here to walk thru the process w/ pix and convince the Moderators to post a sticky?

Not sure how that works but since many Glocks don't, my own included, I think it might rank up there with Public Service Announcements in the great tradition of the "Don't Litter" Indian, "Please Kids Don't Eat Paint Chips".

GaryC
02-20-2012, 08:39
Not sure how that works but since many Glocks don't, my own included, I think it might rank up there with Public Service Announcements in the great tradition of the "Don't Litter" Indian, "Please Kids Don't Eat Paint Chips" and "Use a Condom With the 42 Guys You Are Banging At the Gay Bar This Saturday Night".

:bowdown:

Aquagear
02-20-2012, 09:10
I did what Dave did to his extractor to fix my newer Gen 3 ,17 it worked fine. I actually used a casing against the breach face as a guide to get a firmer hold on the rim, and basically tuned the extractor for a better grip. The extractor is a cast part, not machined so some are not perfect. I think a little careful cleanup would help with some of the guns that are having problems. I took very little metal of mine just enough to improve the grip with very fine stones, so if you try this be careful (a little goes a long way) :wavey:

voyager4520
02-20-2012, 09:26
Which of these two spots are you guys talking about? Or neither?

1. http://i43.tinypic.com/66w9xw.jpg

2. http://i40.tinypic.com/6fw0pl.jpg

On the "new" extractor that came in my G27, I noticed some pretty extreme wear on spot #1.

Keyhole
02-20-2012, 09:27
3/4 Flap, I sure wish you'd done your experiment in two stages -- first with polishing the top and bottom surfaces and then the reduction to the step that limits how far inward the extractor rotates. I say that because many people have had success by just polishing the top and bottom (and sometimes the pivot "cone"). I don't remember anyone ever touching the step, but I welcome people trying different things. As much as I would like to believe the step is an issue, since the extractors are clearly rotated out with a cartridge in the chamber vs an empty chamber, the only affect of the step is during loading, as you pointed out, and when it again touches during extraction. While the removal of .005" would theoretically allow pressure for some extra time, I would think it to be way less than minuscule. I'd be very suspicious that your success, if it continues, is the result of freeing up the extractor by polishing the two surfaces, and cleaning up the claw.

Please keep us up to date on your further testing. I could well be following in your footsteps in the next few days.

+1. Top and bottom polish ALONE fixed my issues.

Aquagear
02-20-2012, 09:31
+1. Top and bottom polish ALONE fixed my issues.
#1 is the area just be cautious of removing to much, I would suggest a light polish and then a test fire. It is not an expensive part but going to far will ruin it.

3/4Flap
02-20-2012, 09:43
#1 is the area just be cautious of removing to much, I would suggest a light polish and then a test fire. It is not an expensive part but going to far will ruin it.

Correct.

#1.

And yes, don't go too far.

Again; tho it is tempting, and possibly correct to assumed the EXTRACTOR is to blame, its bearing surface inside the slide COULD be partly or wholly involved. Mod to the extractor is of course preferable to possibly ruining the frame.

It's just that there is so much we don't know about actual Glock manufacturing processes that we must work to some degree in the dark.

I also like Dave's idea of an increased-strength extractor spring. I do not see much downside to this and do see how it could help.

I also see no worldly need for the complex part that the Glock extractor is. I just don't get it. The thing looks completely over-engineered to me. It totally lacks intuitive "simplicity" that the Glock basically exhibits.

English
02-20-2012, 09:44
I posted a clearly elucidated hypothesis explaining erratic ejection from Glocks a few months back which fits this fix very well.

In essence, the cartridge case does not have time to fall out of position. The slide moves about 1 inch before the case hits the ejector and it travels at about 1.5fps. That lasts about 0.125 seconds and that is not time to fall enough to matter, especially since the case is held by the chamber for most of that time.

More important is the fight between the friction between case and ejector and between case and extractor. If the friction at the extractor side is weak the case will tend to be pulled out from the extractor and will tend to pivot about the ejector rather than the extractor. Rather than its C of G being rotated forward and outward it rotates backward and outward, but the outward component reduces as the case rotates. This movement is limited because the case is blocked by and impacts the breechface. Without that impact, if it could get to 45 degrees, its momentum would be directly backwards.

In what we can consider as normal extraction, by the time the case has rotated 45 degrees its C of G is just about level with the port and if it is still constrained by the extractor its momentum will be taking it directly out of the port. As the slide is still moving backwards the case will be ejected further to the right than staight to the side. In the extreme of abnormal ejection where the rotation is entirely about the ejector tip the C of G of the case, backwards at 20 or 30 derees from straight out through the port ends up with the case bouncing around in the port rather than being ejected cleanly.

As the surface the ejector impacts is inconsistent, with some places rougher than others and some places with indented writing, the grip the ejector gets will be very variable. Bouncing around in the open port is variable in itself but when we add the variable initial conditions we get wide variation in the direction of ejection leading to stove pipes, double feeds and a scater of directions, including to the left, when the case does get thrown clear.

Many suggest wearing a hat and getting used to being hit on the head and I don't think they are intending to be humerous. In fact, any erratic ejection is a serious fault because it can put the pistol out of action when you need it most. Glock should have faced a class action well before now for selling a self defence pistol which does not meet the standards required for a self defence weapon.

English

3/4Flap
02-20-2012, 09:51
This ain't new stuff, either, folks.

Guess why the internal extractors of the BHP and SIG's became external?

Guess what one of the most serious weak spots in the 1911 is?

Yup.

STAR saw the problem and pretty well dealt with it in the '20's, tho QC didn't keep up with their surperb designs.

And....

The fix posted and pictured on another forum promises to be one more in a long line of attempts to deal with the Plague; Cutting down of the slide at the ejection port.......A FIX THAT HIT 1911-TYPE GUNS 30 YEARS AGO.

Getting rid of a fired case from inside a semiautomatic handgun is not as easy as spitting out a worn out dip of chew.

voyager4520
02-20-2012, 09:52
I tried the White Sound Defense HRED EDP assembly which uses a stronger spring and it didn't make much difference in the ejection with the original extractor that my G27 came with.

Dave Nowlin
02-20-2012, 09:53
English, I agree with your thoughts. The problem is, over here in the colonies we don't understand your thought process when it is explained that concisely. You need to dumb down your way of expressing your thoughts for us.:supergrin:

jw38
02-20-2012, 10:49
Just finished my 19 and took it into our back yard to shoot 5 quick rounds. According to my Wife, all 5 cases were in about the same consistent line to the right side. I'm Happy. No more embarrassment at the Range because I would get my football helment and gogles out. Now off to my 27. Thanks for the info!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AA#5
02-20-2012, 11:01
This ain't new stuff, either, folks.

Guess why the internal extractors of the BHP and SIG's became external?

Guess what one of the most serious weak spots in the 1911 is?

Yup.

STAR saw the problem and pretty well dealt with it in the '20's, tho QC didn't keep up with their surperb designs.

And....

The fix posted and pictured on another forum promises to be one more in a long line of attempts to deal with the Plague; Cutting down of the slide at the ejection port.......A FIX THAT HIT 1911-TYPE GUNS 30 YEARS AGO.

Getting rid of a fired case from inside a semiautomatic handgun is not as easy as spitting out a worn out dip of chew.

I don't think so. Guess what type of extractor my Wilson CQB has? Internal & it has 6,200 rounds without a malfunction. My Uzi also has an internal spring-steel extractor & even looks exactly like a 1911 extractor. More than 28,000 rounds without a malfunction & it's the original part.

I think it's a design & quality control issue.

Officer's Match
02-20-2012, 11:14
Let's see here, how did that Kimber external extractor 1911 fix thing go? :whistling:

Aquagear
02-20-2012, 11:37
Just finished my 19 and took it into our back yard to shoot 5 quick rounds. According to my Wife, all 5 cases were in about the same consistent line to the right side. I'm Happy. No more embarrassment at the Range because I would get my football helment and gogles out. Now off to my 27. Thanks for the info!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you get it to work by cleaning up the extractor?

Z71bill
02-20-2012, 11:40
Maybe we need a sticky for

"Glock FLUFF AND BUFF" :rofl:

jw38
02-20-2012, 11:51
Did you get it to work by cleaning up the extractor?

Little of both - follow Dave's post here. As I look at the extractor in the frame - I lightly sanded the top and bottom sides. Turned extractor over, sanded "shelfs" A&B. On the Claw itself, I took a small stone to clean up the ends that wrap over the case. Good, cleaning, lube and reassemble. Like another Post said, someone needs to be charging Glock for this fix. This fix is better than sliced bread.

English
02-20-2012, 12:02
Let's see here, how did that Kimber external extractor 1911 fix thing go? :whistling:

Don't know about Kimber but the S&W 1911s seem to work without problems and using the grip safety to lift the firing pin block instead of the trigger is a nice improvement. You have to wonder what Colt was doing all those years!

English

kamonjj
02-20-2012, 12:10
As a glock armorer, I would definitely be inclined to do this. I'm not the typical "part replacer" that was mentioned earlier in the thread. I was literally upstairs putting together a long range precision rifle I am building. I was just fitting the action to a bottom metal.

Anyways, it seems as though (I for one dont have any issues with any of my glocks and never had) that a light polish of the extractor will happen with use. So, I for one don't see an issue with polishing it but, it may shorten its life depending how much you remove. When we are talking 1000ths of an inch between working 100% and having erratic ejection, I'd just say be careful. A little will probably go a long way in terms of getting where you want it to be.

If your ejection is all over the place and you already replaced the extractor/ejector/rsa/ whatever else is said to be causing it. A little fine tune polish certainly couldn't hurt. I would do mine but, my glocks fire great, eject great, and work like glock perfection should. Maybe its my hand loads (wait did I just say that out loud)

English
02-20-2012, 12:10
English, I agree with your thoughts. The problem is, over here in the colonies we don't understand your thought process when it is explained that concisely. You need to dumb down your way of expressing your thoughts for us.:supergrin:

Another 2 to 300 years of evolution should do it. http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/greensupergrin.gif

Actually, some things have a limit to how far you can dumb them down. I am not in a position to work on this problem practically and none of my Glocks have this problem. I am fairly sure that your solution is correct. If the movement of the extractor to grip the rim is blocked by this shoulder before it is pressing on the rim, then a stronger spring won't help.

English

Dave Nowlin
02-20-2012, 12:20
Another 2 to 300 years of evolution should do it. http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/smilies/greensupergrin.gif

Actually, some things have a limit to how far you can dumb them down. I am not in a position to work on this problem practically and none of my Glocks have this problem. I am fairly sure that your solution is correct. If the movement of the extractor to grip the rim is blocked by this shoulder before it is pressing on the rim, then a stronger spring won't help.

English


Agreed. But removing enough metal to get better and more complete contact with the case head and adding a slightly stronger spring should.

Aquagear
02-20-2012, 12:44
Agreed. But removing enough metal to get better and more complete contact with the case head and adding a slightly stronger spring should.

Dave I think you are right on this. The extractor needs to hold the casing firmly against the breach face in order for it to contact the ejector correctly. Before I did the work on mine if you placed an empty case against the breach face it would start to slide off at an angle the on ejector side. If the contact area on the rim is always changing the ejection pattern will be all over the place. Better rim contact and a firmer spring should help consistency.

diamondd2
02-20-2012, 15:43
Are heavier/stronger springs available?

Dave Nowlin
02-20-2012, 16:00
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together? I got out my G27, which ejects perfectly and my G30SF that is doing better. I took them both apart and placed a round of the proper caliber under the claw of each ejector and examined them both very closely with the stronger of my 2 pairs of reading glasses and a bright flashlight. Then I once again removed the extractor from the G30SF and did a bit more polishing and put it back together. I loaded 5 rounds in a magazine and went outside (Ilive in the country on 50 acres). I fired the 5 rounds and they all ejected into a very small area to my right rear. Yippee, they didn't go over my head like last time. Over my head without contacting me is an improvement. Going to the right rear instead, is even more of an improvement. The most honest advice I can give any of you is, examine a gun which ejects perfectly under bright light and with even a small amount of magnification if possible. Then do the same thing with the gun which is giving trouble. Very carefully notice any differences in the way the extractor contacts the case head and then do whatever is necessary to make the problem pistol contact the casehead in the same manner as the pistol which gives no problems. Once this achieved, I would expect your problems to be gone. This kind of practice should be done carefully with hand tools. Should you do this properly you will begin to have an appreciation for what a real gunsmith does and why his work isn't free.

Pathfinder20
02-20-2012, 16:03
I have not touched the extractor yet. I took the slide off my Glock 19 Gen 3 Serial #SCZ### and removed the recoil spring and the barrel. Now I have placed a empty case in under the extractor up to where the brass mark is on the breachface. Looking through the slide and using the underside of a lampshade with the light on, the claw is holding the brass in place. The extractor claw is about even with the angle part of the brass.
Is this how the extractor is on the guns that are working?

Duck of Death
02-20-2012, 16:15
I took some off the #1 position, looking at the wear pattern indicated it was hitting the frame and needed to be filed down. Also smoothed the flat sides, my G27 is ejecting nicely.

Dave Nowlin
02-20-2012, 16:23
It is hard to paint a word picture that can properly explain what must be done. That is why after thinking about this a bit I decided to compare a gun which wasn't working perfectly with one which was. I wanted to see for myself what differences I could see. Once I had done this I proceeded with caution. I am more than pleased with the results. Any time you take on a project like this you must first ask yourself a couple of things (1) how handy am I with delicate hand tools? (2) how mechanically inclined am I? (3) Am I confident enough in my own ability to take general instructions, fit them to my situation and work out the details?
You must understand that any time you work on your own firearm, you assume all of the liability. In projects such as this no one can give you precise instructions that will work with every pistol. I'm afraid that the quality control variations with these pistols don't allow precise instructions. These parts aren't precisely made on CNC machines to super close tolerances. If that info makes you uncomfortable working on your own pistol. Then don't do it.

cciman
02-20-2012, 18:33
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.

English
02-21-2012, 04:38
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.

But first it needs to be doing approximately what it should be doing. If the extractor is not gripping the case well enough to stop the ejector pulling it out of engagement, it can't do that.

If the ejection pattern is significantly erratic there IS a fault with the pistol which higher power cartridges will not solve and which could cause a stoppage at a critical moment.

English

3/4Flap
02-21-2012, 06:03
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.


Basically; No.

Use a different gun for example. Once upon a time I had a large collection of Finnish Mosin-Nagant rifles. The extractor on the M-N can depending on manufacture seat slightly too far forward for a tight grip of the case. I had one that was not functioning properly in this regard. However, if you just yank the bolt back ridiculously hard, the case will come out and be ejected. However, if you worked the bolt slowly or "normally" the case ...might...fall off the extractor.

What you are recommending in effect is that. Yank the bolt back super hard.

That is no solution.

A 9x19 should function properly with all normal ammo. I've demonstrated numerous time that 115/1100 IS normal ammo in the 9x19. So is 124/1075. That is historically the loads that were very common in 9x19 manufacture. To suggest that "shooting heavier ammo" is the fix for a 9x19 today should not be the path followed.

For one thing, the old Gen 3's did just fine thank you will all ammo from lighter loads to +P. They and the Gen 4's should now, too.

Bren
02-21-2012, 06:08
Wow - you guys sure put a lot of effort into this. Somebody order a 15 lb ISMI recoil spring from Midway or Brownells and let us know how surprisingly easy it is to fix your ejection problems with no permanent gun mods.

Terry C.
02-21-2012, 07:37
I ran my extractor across a hard Arkansas stone top & bottom, checking the fit after each (very) light pass.

This is all I did and my ejection issues have gone away.

This a later Gen3 G19 that came with the new extractor used on the Gen4. It was very rough, and would drag on the sides of the extractor groove. It moved freely after stoning.

Mike_P
02-21-2012, 08:03
I've read the thread... I'm contemplating doing this since I have extra extractors... BUT, and I'm only saying this out of curiousity, not because I have any reason not to believe this will work...

Has anyone run their gun after making the changes through more than 4-5 rounds? That's all I'm seeing in this thread and frankly, I don't think that's a big enough test group to verify if the changes are consistantly guarunteed. I want to believe!

NucPhysics
02-21-2012, 08:16
First, I want want to say it is impressive what you are doing to resolve the ejection problems with your Glocks.

But what does that say about Glock that their owners are having to resort to gunsmithing their own guns to get them to work better.

Impressed with you guys, not with Glock right now.

Dave Nowlin
02-21-2012, 08:17
mike, my G30SF would have put 5 cases in 5 different places before and probably 2 of the 5 would have been my face and head. Now the 5 will be in an area you could cover with a bushel basket that is to my right and slightly rearward. What more do I need. I'm convinced and don't need to shoot 200 more rounds to satisfy me. I'm sharing what I have learned to help othewrs. Based on what I'm now experiencing, I no longer believe I need to change the extractor spring. This makes things even simpler. The trick is to alter the travel of the extractor IF it doesn't swing in enough to firmly grip the case head. Then polish the surfaces involved in such a way as to maximize the contact area on the case head. This allows consistent extraction. When the case head is held in exactly the same position each time the rearward movement of the slide will cause the ejector to strike the case head in exactly the same place. When this happens consistent ejection will result. I'm trying to remember the old adage. It goes something like doing the same thing the same way each time and expecting different results is the height of insanity. What we have here is the inverse. We are trying to do the same thing in a DIFFERENT way each time and expecting consistent results.

Mike_P
02-21-2012, 08:30
mike, my G30SF would have put 5 cases in 5 different places before and probably 2 of the 5 would have been my face and head. Now the 5 will be in an area you could cover with a bushel basket that is to my right and slightly rearward. What more do I need. I'm convinced and don't need to shoot 200 more rounds to satisfy me. I'm sharing what I have learned to help othewrs. Based on what I'm now experiencing, I no longer believe I need to change the extractor spring. This makes things even simpler. The trick is to alter the travel of the extractor IF it doesn't swing in enough to firmly grip the case head. Then polish the surfaces involved in such a way as to maximize the contact area on the case head. This allows consistent extraction. When the case head is held in exactly the same position each time the rearward movement of the slide will cause the ejector to strike the case head in exactly the same place. When this happens consistent ejection will result. I'm trying to remember the old adage. It goes something like doing the same thing the same way each time and expecting different results is the height of insanity. What we have here is the inverse. We are trying to do the same thing in a DIFFERENT way each time and expecting consistent results.

Thanks for the info! My hesitation in doing this without a large group being shot is that, each of my 4 glocks are different. While one may hit me in the head with brass in 2 out of 100 rounds, another may not do it except for 1 in 200. Another possibly 2 every 50. I suppose I am trying to determine if I should just do it to all of them or just the ones suffering the worst.

If it sounds as good as you all are making it out, I'll just run all of my extractors over some stones and see where it goes from there.

Ironically enough, a buddy of mine as well as myself have also had this issue in M&P's. Found it funny that a copy of the glock design also suffered from this issue.

bentbiker
02-21-2012, 08:44
I ran my extractor across a hard Arkansas stone top & bottom, checking the fit after each (very) light pass.

This is all I did and my ejection issues have gone away.

Thanks, Terry. This fix has worked for many (not all) over the last 18 mos, and it is good to know it still works. From 3/4flap's post, this was part of his work as well.

3/4Flap
02-21-2012, 09:13
I've read the thread... I'm contemplating doing this since I have extra extractors... BUT, and I'm only saying this out of curiousity, not because I have any reason not to believe this will work...

Has anyone run their gun after making the changes through more than 4-5 rounds? That's all I'm seeing in this thread and frankly, I don't think that's a big enough test group to verify if the changes are consistantly guarunteed. I want to believe!

Read my thread here. Yesterday's work.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403289 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403289)

About 150 rounds.

It is not perfect, but is much better.

Left hand shooting ejection patterns ARE perfect. Right hand shooting ejection patterns still need some improvement.

I can now live with the gun, but I think I can do better yet with some more work on the extractor. As I said earlier, I was VERY careful not to take too much off the first time.

I also now have isolated the ejection problems in this pistol to right hand shooting. I'm left handed but will be doing my further post-modification testing of ejection patterns by shooting right handed.

Frankly, as I've said from the beginning, the current "parts swapping" mentality of most shooters today has exacerbated this problem in simply relying on Glock to spin our a cure. I and others have had to or otherwise fixed many a gun problem without waiting for the manufacturer to fix it. I literally, except for the my G19 {so far...} have not bought a single new gun in 20 year that did not have a wart or two that needed fixing. Only a few have been sent back to the makers.

Should they make it right? Well of course, but I am not waiting around for them to do it. I just got my first Glocks last year.

One was a total lemon and Glock replaced the gun for me. The G17 was perfect...for a while. Then this. The G19 is so far going well. But am I overjoyed with Glock?

No. They are no darn different than any other gun maker.

Do I HATE Glock?

No. They make as good a product as some others and better than others yet. I like my Glocks...now.

40 years ago when most fellows made their living standing in front of a machine of some sort, DIY was common gun practice. Maybe not so much any more.

Really, this is not hard work... :)

MNBud
02-21-2012, 09:22
I'm with an early poster,it may have been bent biker, I thought this problem had been mostly resolved by POLISHING the top and bottom surfaces of the extractor.You could be taking away years of reliability down the road by removing material that is a built in stop for the extractor. Many years as a machinist has shown me that one step at a time is best for trouble shooting.I would highly recommend polishing top and bottom surfaces and then go out and shoot your gun and report back.

William Springer
02-21-2012, 09:38
I also suffered with erratic ejection on my GEN 4 G23 and while doing a detail strip noticed the chrome and copper undercoating at the tip of the extractor pin was being scraped off by milling burrs at the mouth of the pin bore also the extractor itself was very rough with casting lines and uneven wear marks. So With some ceramic files I dressed all the roughness out and polished the sides of the extractor chamfered the throat of the pin bore mouth ever so slightly polished the pin tip and tuned up the pin bore with a 17Cal. wire brush, greased lightly and now it will throw all brass about 5ft. out at 3:00 O'Clock into my baseball cap. It seams that a few of you want your guns to all work like a Les Baer hand tunned 1911 that cost an extra $3,000.00 out of the box. but only pay for the priced right glocks. It has been my experience that all firearms regardless of shape, size ,action design, long gun, revolver, pistol,etc will at some point require some tunning so its really a matter of do you want to pay Les baer prices for a hand tunned glock that at some point in its life will still need some tuning because of wear or except a lesser refined product and learn to tune them as required your self, or pay your local gun smith to do it for you :dunno:

Dave Nowlin
02-21-2012, 10:06
Do the Gen 1 & 2 extractors wear out and have to be replaced often? I doubt that they did. Removing metal in order to slightly reshape our extractors so that they work the way they are supposed to shouldn't be a problem. When you try filing on the extractor you will quickly discover it is a hardened part. The brass case head on the other hand is a relatively soft part. When the two work against each other, which do you expect to show wear? Even if I have to change extractors every 20,000 rounds, it would be a small price to pay for reliable, consistent ejection. Maybe I'm just older tha a lot of you. I don't know. In the past I have had 1911s from Para-Ord, Colt & Kimber in sizes from Officers Model to Government model with no ejection problems. I've had a Sig 220 & 229 with no ejection problems. I've had metal frame S&Ws in9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W and .45 a.c.p. and none of them had ejection problems. I've also had two Springfield XDs with no ejection problems. I've never been hit in the face or head with brass from any weapon I've owned until the G30SF. It shouldn't and won't continue to throw brass into my face. In fact I have fixed it now. Regardless of what some say, when you get hit in the face enough your brain will begin reacting to this. Sort of like a flinch but instead, you will be slightly ducking your head. Your brain will attempt to protect you even if you don't try and protect yourself. It's sort of like when your eye blinks to keep a bug from getting in it. The brain registers the presence of the bug and makes your eye blink before you realize the bug is there. When the brass is hitting you in the face, your sub-concious mind is going to work to protect you whether you like it or not. Now try and do your best shooting with that in the back of your mind.

3/4Flap
02-21-2012, 10:31
Do the Gen 1 & 2 extractors wear out and have to be replaced often? I doubt that they did. Removing metal in order to slightly reshape our extractors so that they work the way they are supposed to shouldn't be a problem. When you try filing on the extractor you will quickly discover it is a hardened part. The brass case head on the other hand is a relatively soft part. When the two work against each other, which do you expect to show wear? Even if I have to change extractors every 20,000 rounds, it would be a small price to pay for reliable, consistent ejection. Maybe I'm just older tha a lot of you. I don't know. In the past I have had 1911s from Para-Ord, Colt & Kimber in sizes from Officers Model to Government model with no ejection problems. I've had a Sig 220 & 229 with no ejection problems. I've had metal frame S&Ws in9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W and .45 a.c.p. and none of them had ejection problems. I've also had two Springfield XDs with no ejection problems. I've never been hit in the face or head with brass from any weapon I've owned until the G30SF. It shouldn't and won't continue to throw brass into my face. In fact I have fixed it now. Regardless of what some say, when you get hit in the face enough your brain will begin reacting to this. Sort of like a flinch but instead, you will be slightly ducking your head. Your brain will attempt to protect you even if you don't try and protect yourself. It's sort of like when your eye blinks to keep a bug from getting in it. The brain registers the presence of the bug and makes your eye blink before you realize the bug is there. When the brass is hitting you in the face, your sub-concious mind is going to work to protect you whether you like it or not. Now try and do your best shooting with that in the back of your mind.

Hey, first things first;

I've been misspelling Dave's handle.

Can somebody fix that??

Sorry!!!

Next, I 100% agree with Dave and William Springer makes good points.

As for wear, look, does anyone know if any damage or excessive wear is being induced with bad extractors now? How does relieving tight spots and improving grip on the case inject added likelihood of failure?

Obviously if somebody grinds down the hook the extractor could be compromised, but that is NOT what we are talking about.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-21-2012, 10:55
Just finished my 19 and took it into our back yard to shoot 5 quick rounds. According to my Wife, all 5 cases were in about the same consistent line to the right side. I'm Happy. No more embarrassment at the Range because I would get my football helment and gogles out. Now off to my 27. Thanks for the info!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny about the football helmet, but so true. :rofl:

AA#5
02-21-2012, 11:01
First, I want want to say it is impressive what you are doing to resolve the ejection problems with your Glocks.

But what does that say about Glock that their owners are having to resort to gunsmithing their own guns to get them to work better.

Impressed with you guys, not with Glock right now.

Amazing, isn't it? In order to remain passionate Glock fans, some people lose their common sense.

ken grant
02-21-2012, 12:47
OK you guys looking at how the case contacts the extractor remember with the case centered on the breechface is not the way it is when the barrel drops down.
When the ejector hits the case it is much lower on the breechface and that is the place to check extractor fit to the case.

ak103k
02-21-2012, 12:57
Not saying that there arent some issues with the different extractors, but I am wondering how much of this is also ammo, and specifically, "case" related.

99% of what I shoot are my reloads. The more I load and shoot the same brass, the worse this problem seems to get. When I shoot factory loaded ammo, or reloaded brass thats once fired, or only been loaded a couple of times, I dont seem to have the problem.

As an example, when I got back into 9mm Glocks, I initially bought a 17 and a 26. I had a bunch of once fired 9mm brass, so I loaded up 3000 rounds of it have been rotating through that same lot of brass ever since. Other than the usual replacements for lost or failing brass, its been the same stuff all along for a number of years now.

My 17 started to bean me on the head more and more as time wore on, and I was thinking it was the extractor, so I replaced it and its spring. The round count at that point was probably around 10-15000 rounds.

At first, it seemed like it stopped with the erratic ejection, but soon after, even with the new extractor installed, it was right back to it. At this point, its probably got somewhere around 30000 through it, and I still get beaned pretty regular.

Now when I shoot factory ammo, like a box of Federal or Winchester, it never seems to miss a beat.

Makes me think that a lot of this is what we shoot out of the gun, more than it is the gun itself, or at least, with mine it seems that way.

cciman
02-21-2012, 13:52
No I am just suggesting to change the physics-- how you do it is up to you. Everyone seems to be complaining about "ejection' without quantifying what that is.... seems to revolve around getting hit in the head/face. This is not necessarily a gun problem-- if you change the ammo choice you will change the trajectory, and the rate of 'ejection' issues. Worrying about getting hit in the head 2/100 times is over obsessing. If anyone ever did a study on ammo load, I would bet 2% variance is within spec especially for practice ammo, even worse for homemade, depending on the individual and the equipment used.

If you change the recoil spring (heavier or lighter, I did not say which- but to lighten perceived recoil go heavier, not by much but it will affect trajectory path) you will also change the ejection trajectory.

Comparing Gen3 to Gen 4 is comparing green apples to red oranges, or the LT1 to the LS1. The Gen4's have a different recoil rod and spring, as well as other features (extractors, ejectors), it will behave differently-- all for the price of reducing recoil when using non-practice ammo, and having adjustable grips with nubs. You can closely turn a gen 4 into a Gen 3 by using a rod adapter bushing, and using the gen3 RSA. Enjoy this mental bation...

Basically; No.

Use a different gun for example. Once upon a time I had a large collection of Finnish Mosin-Nagant rifles. The extractor on the M-N can depending on manufacture seat slightly too far forward for a tight grip of the case. I had one that was not functioning properly in this regard. However, if you just yank the bolt back ridiculously hard, the case will come out and be ejected. However, if you worked the bolt slowly or "normally" the case ...might...fall off the extractor.

What you are recommending in effect is that. Yank the bolt back super hard.

That is no solution.

A 9x19 should function properly with all normal ammo. I've demonstrated numerous time that 115/1100 IS normal ammo in the 9x19. So is 124/1075. That is historically the loads that were very common in 9x19 manufacture. To suggest that "shooting heavier ammo" is the fix for a 9x19 today should not be the path followed.

For one thing, the old Gen 3's did just fine thank you will all ammo from lighter loads to +P. They and the Gen 4's should now, too.

Dave Nowlin
02-21-2012, 13:58
The stuff that was beating me in the head and face was new hardball. Actually if the rotation of the extractor around the post is limited then things will get worse as the case head experiences wear. Now if you relieved things a few thousandths, it would swing in farther and continue to maintain a good grip on your reloads. I am a reloader and don't often shoot ammo I don't reload but someone gave me 4 boxes of hardball in .45 a.c.p. in a gun trade. They threw it in, so I took it.

ithaca_deerslayer
02-21-2012, 14:35
No I am just suggesting to change the physics-- how you do it is up to you. Everyone seems to be complaining about "ejection' without quantifying what that is.... seems to revolve around getting hit in the head/face. This is not necessarily a gun problem-- if you change the ammo choice you will change the trajectory, and the rate of 'ejection' issues. Worrying about getting hit in the head 2/100 times is over obsessing. . .

2 in 100 is a problem. 2 in 50 is a problem. 2 in 10 is a problem. Empties to the face is a problem. It is a gun problem. Not an ammo problem.

If this happened with another gun, lots of people would have dropped it and gotten a different brand. The Glock is worth fixing. Lots of the people with this gun problem have other Glocks that don't do it. Have other guns that don't do it. The gun that does it is a problem gun. But hopefully it can be fixed.

Hot brass to your own eyes is not the best way to start a self-defense situation :rofl:

3/4Flap
02-21-2012, 15:43
First, I am not "passionate" about anything other than God my Savior Jesus Christ, my family and my country.

"Glock" is a darn tool that's broke and I don't feel like going thru the motions of selling it in order to buy a Smith M&P that has some other cockamamey problem. I am a magnet for gun warts.

So a fix that takes me ten minutes seems to be a no brainer if it actually results in "Glock Perfection".

Second, Glocks of the past were well-known to eject all their fired cases in a hat thrown on the ground. They still do but now the shooter has to wear the hat.

CCI: all of what you say is true, but look, if the gun can be made to work with all ammo, what's not to love?

As for the point about reloaded ammo, well, yes, in any automatic gun mechanism the tendency is to experience more and more failures to function as cases are reloaded. Case dimensions DO change and case heads expand over time. Try reloading for a Remington 742...you get three or four loadings and the gun jams. I hate those guns!

Semiauto cases WILL have a "life expectancy" not necessarily due to actual case failure, but due to dimensional changes of the case head and the inability of the sizing die to reach the entire head due to the position of the case holder. Nature of the beast.

As for the "philosophy" of discussion that these things tend to foster, well, I really don't care whether Glock should have, didn't, might, is worse or better for not making the perfect pistol in the world. What I care about is getting my guns to work 100%. If they don't do it, I will, or find a way, or get rid of the gun.

I don't shoot philosophy, I shoot guns.

ak103k
02-21-2012, 16:14
Semiauto cases WILL have a "life expectancy" not necessarily due to actual case failure, but due to dimensional changes of the case head and the inability of the sizing die to reach the entire head due to the position of the case holder.
I shoot mine until they "fail", which usually means the neck splits/cracks. "Life expectancy" is usually literally "years" worth of loading for most of them too. In the case of this lot of 9mm Im shooting now, means a rotation of around 8 weeks give or take for the 3000 Im currently loading and Ive been loading them a little over three years now. Im just now starting to get a split case showing up here and there.

Never had any issues with the case not being properly sized though, and thats across most auto calibers from .32 to .45.



I just found the last extractor I removed and cleaned it up a bit according to whats been posted here. Ill take it out tomorrow and see if theres any difference.

dusty_dragon
02-21-2012, 17:17
sorry for my , perhaps dumb, question, but with polishin the top and bottom part of the extractor as one first soolution to the problem, which parts of the extractor exactly do you mean with "top" and "bottom"?

i suppose you mean the top and bottom edge on the long side of the extractor that fit in the longish groove in the slide, right?

and another question:
did you try also polishing at the inside of the claw of the extractor?

3/4Flap
02-21-2012, 17:53
I just found the last extractor I removed and cleaned it up a bit according to whats been posted here. Ill take it out tomorrow and see if theres any difference.

Will you be shooting the "problem" brass?

THAT would be very interesting to read about.

Please post your results!

ak103k
02-21-2012, 18:01
Yup. Same brass. Ill let you know. :)

captdreifus
02-21-2012, 20:28
Good info here.

Terry C.
02-21-2012, 21:59
sorry for my , perhaps dumb, question, but with polishin the top and bottom part of the extractor as one first soolution to the problem, which parts of the extractor exactly do you mean with "top" and "bottom"?

i suppose you mean the top and bottom edge on the long side of the extractor that fit in the longish groove in the slide, right?

and another question:
did you try also polishing at the inside of the claw of the extractor?

Maybe "top" and "bottom" are not technically correct terms, but that's what I call them.

As you are looking at the extractor in its groove, that's how I define "top" and "bottom."

In the pic in post #23, you are looking at what I call the bottom of the extractor.

.

dusty_dragon
02-22-2012, 02:48
thanks, Terry C, now i got it. but i think you mean the extractor in it's groove, not the ejector, as mentioned in your post above, right?

did you also polish the inward side of the claw/hook of the extractor

Terry C.
02-22-2012, 05:54
thanks, Terry C, now i got it. but i think you mean the extractor in it's groove, not the ejector, as mentioned in your post above, right?

did you also polish the inward side of the claw/hook of the extractor

You caught me, and I edited.

It was late and I've had the flu. I should have been zonked on Nyquil intead. :yawn:


I have not touched anything on mine except the stoning of the top and bottom. I figured the less I could do and make it work, the better.

I may clean up the claw a little but I don't plan on removing enough metal to change anything. At least not as long as I'm not having problems.

I will try to post a pick tonight, you can clearly see where the stone polished the extractor.

dusty_dragon
02-22-2012, 06:36
thanks a lot, Terry C.
dusty

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 06:37
Not sure why I did not post this originally, but;

I had a heck of a time getting the EXTRACTOR out of the slide.

I mean, it was a real pain. It would not lift or pry out. There was obvious tension or almost grittiness about the seat. Yes, there was some dirt present but nothing overwhelming. I finally resorted to banging the slide sideways on a book laid on a stout table.

Once out, I cleaned it and tried its seat inside the slide and it was still hanging up, "gritty" so-to-speak.

After stoning, the extractor slid more easily inside the slide.

Now, I just looked at a pic that Butch posted of old and new parts and my extractor appears to have more pronounced mold ridges'flashing than even his "new" part. His "old" part is of course, basically smooth.

Now, for those who warn against modifying an extractor for fear of reduction of service life, I again ask the opposite question;

Which is this;

Should we not also be concerned about haphazard placement of the extractor on the case head that may be the result of the extractor hanging up on the slide as it moves back and forth. True, the extractor is a hardened part and the case head/rim/groove base is much softer, BUT the grit that develops inside the gun from shooting, etc, over time may form a lap of sorts and wear the point of the extractor or the slide internal bearing surfaces or alter some other portion of the mating surfaces as applied by the case head or the extractor/slide bearing parts.

No, I want nothing to do with a part that has obvious excess flashing, sticks in the slide and doesn't move freely. None of those conditions can do anything positive for short or longterm functioning reliability.

Now, WHY did the gun work well at the beginning and lose efficiency over time?

I cannot say for sure, and naturally hope that it is not because some serious harm was caused to the groove in the slide, but I wonder if a slight amount of grit is all that is necessary to inhibit free movement of the extractor due to ridges on the extractor. It does look like the extractor has been redesigned to allow fouling buildup inside the relieved area. But such fixes don't always work as they should if they are offset by some other factor.

I'm going to remove mine again, check for free sliding in/out and if there is any hesitation, stone it again. Even if I "ruin" it, it will be a good learning experience. and what I have in mind will not, I don't believe, ruin it. In fact, just the opposite...

Topknot
02-22-2012, 07:27
Some pictures would be great.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 08:14
Sorry Topknot. I just pulled the thing apart again and worked on it some more. wish I saw your post before I was done.

OK:

This time I allowed the feel of the extractor to be the guide. First, I put my finger in the slide and moved the extractor back and forth. It is better than it was originally but I could still feel very definite hanging up at several points thru its arch.

I removed the extractor and sure enough, I could see where my previous polishing is, but also see that there were still ridges. Like I said, the first time I polished the sides I was very careful. I wish I know what is the specification dimension of the part, but I do not.

However; IMO only one of two options exist;

EITHER;

1} The ridges are in-spec, which means the main body of the extractor is OUT of spec.

OR;

2} The main body of the extractor is in-spec and the ridges are OUT of spec.

Folks, BOTH cannot be within specification for the part.

So, with a "what the hell", I stoned the sides smooth of almost all the ridges. There are only faint lines now in a couple spots. Ridges are gone.

And guess what...

Upon reassembly, SO ARE THE HESITATIONS OF MOVEMENT ALONG THE ARCH OF TRAVEL.

Look, I would expect a moving part to move smoothly. Mine didn't at all. Now it does, with only the faintest of ultra-slight hesitation occuring which upon oiling goes away. I suspect if I eliminated those faint ridges I'd eliminate even the last of the slight hesitation.

Whatever I did to function {I don't know yet, haven't shot it} I know I removed the grinding feeling of the extractor travel.

I have a HUNCH that this cannot be a bad thing. Shooting will prove it.

Made in Austria
02-22-2012, 08:44
Very good info here in this thread! It looks like you guys found the cure. Good job!

I also noticed that the extractor of my newly made G23 gen4 moves completely different in it's slot than in my "older" gen4's. The extractor of the new one moves nice and free when I move it with my fingers. That was not the case with my older gen4's, there was lot's of binding and empty's to the head before I exchanged the extractors.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 09:00
Just checked with 6 shots using the right-hand grip that usually produces the worst results. Also only loaded 3 per mag as the last few are usually the worst performers.

3 rounds of PMC 115 FMJ, 3 rounds of RWS 124 FMJ.

Results; ALL ejected cases landed between 3 and 4 O'Clock TO MY RIGHT virtually in the same place as they land when I shoot the gun LEFT-handed!

OK, I know these last 6 rounds are not the final word, but I'm calling it THE {tentative} FIX.

Period.

Look, unless Glock has truly fixed the binding issue, just getting new extractors is not necessarily EVER going to help. The binding in the extractor slot must be eliminated.

OH...and my gun has the 336 ejector, too.

Now, since Gen 4 guns suck and are total pieces of crap, I'm wondering if anyone has a bad-ejecting Gen 4 9x19 they'd like to sell cheap. I'll be glad to talk. I mean, seriously, your gun is garbage. :D ;)

Keyhole
02-22-2012, 09:10
Just checked with 6 shots using the right-hand grip that usually produces the worst results. Also only loaded 3 per mag as the last few are usually the worst performers.

3 rounds of PMC 115 FMJ, 3 rounds of RWS 124 FMJ.

Results; ALL ejected cases landed between 3 and 4 O'Clock TO MY RIGHT virtually in the same place as they land when I shoot the gun LEFT-handed!

OK, I know these last 6 rounds are not the final word, but I'm calling it THE {tentative} FIX.

Period.

Look, unless Glock has truly fixed the binding issue, just getting new extractors is not necessarily EVER going to help. The binding in the ejector slot must be eliminated.

OH...and my gun has the 336 ejector, too.

Now, since Gen 4 guns suck and are total pieces of crap, I'm wondering if anyone has a bad-ejecting Gen 4 9x19 they'd like to sell cheap. I'll be glad to talk. I mean, seriously, your gun is garbage. :D ;)

LOL. Nice try.

Keyhole
02-22-2012, 09:29
Not sure why I did not post this originally, but;

I had a heck of a time getting the EXTRACTOR out of the slide.

I mean, it was a real pain. It would not lift or pry out. There was obvious tension or almost grittiness about the seat. Yes, there was some dirt present but nothing overwhelming. I finally resorted to banging the slide sideways on a book laid on a stout table.

Once out, I cleaned it and tried its seat inside the slide and it was still hanging up, "gritty" so-to-speak.

After stoning, the extractor slid more easily inside the slide.

Now, I just looked at a pic that Butch posted of old and new parts and my extractor appears to have more pronounced mold ridges'flashing than even his "new" part. His "old" part is of course, basically smooth.

Now, for those who warn against modifying an extractor for fear of reduction of service life, I again ask the opposite question;

Which is this;

Should we not also be concerned about haphazard placement of the extractor on the case head that may be the result of the extractor hanging up on the slide as it moves back and forth. True, the extractor is a hardened part and the case head/rim/groove base is much softer, BUT the grit that develops inside the gun from shooting, etc, over time may form a lap of sorts and wear the point of the extractor or the slide internal bearing surfaces or alter some other portion of the mating surfaces as applied by the case head or the extractor/slide bearing parts.

No, I want nothing to do with a part that has obvious excess flashing, sticks in the slide and doesn't move freely. None of those conditions can do anything positive for short or longterm functioning reliability.

Now, WHY did the gun work well at the beginning and lose efficiency over time?

I cannot say for sure, and naturally hope that it is not because some serious harm was caused to the groove in the slide, but I wonder if a slight amount of grit is all that is necessary to inhibit free movement of the extractor due to ridges on the extractor. It does look like the extractor has been redesigned to allow fouling buildup inside the relieved area. But such fixes don't always work as they should if they are offset by some other factor.

I'm going to remove mine again, check for free sliding in/out and if there is any hesitation, stone it again. Even if I "ruin" it, it will be a good learning experience. and what I have in mind will not, I don't believe, ruin it. In fact, just the opposite...

I did the same thing, polished the top and bottom extractor ridges down until they were somewhat smooth and faint, and it solved my straight-back-ejection issues.

ak103k
02-22-2012, 09:42
OK, just back from the range.

Took two 17's with me, the one I fiddled with the extractor, and a 17 RTF I use in my carry rotation for something to compare (and just in case the other was a total flop :) ).

Ammo was 300 rounds of my reloads and a 100 round value pack of Winchester white box.

I shot 150 rounds of my reloads out of the 17 with the cleaned up extractor, and got 8 cases to my face and head. The brass that did eject clear, did seem to fall in a more regular pattern on the ground though.

Shot 150 rounds of reloads out of the RTF, and had 2 to the head.

I then shot the whole 100 rounds of WWB out of the gun with the cleaned up extractor, and it didnt miss a beat. Not one case even close to my head, and all cases went basically in the same general area on the ground as the first lot.

Typically with this gun and that extractor, what I was seeing today as far as getting bonked with brass, was about what I was seeing just before I changed it out the first time. After the change to the second, new extractor, things have been a little better, maybe around half of what I had today in the same number of rounds, but I still get them. The factory ammo running without a blip is what Ive had all along, or at least as best as I can remember. I really dont shoot all that much factory, so its probably really not a fair comparison, but I dont seem to have the issue when I do shoot factory.

One thing too with the reloads, theres no real pattern or regularity as to the number of cases to the face. Sometimes I get a bunch to the face, other times, hardly any, and even none. Usually its at least a couple though. I think its all just a matter of how far along the brass is in the process, how bad the rim is chewed up, and how the extractor happens to grab it at the time. Its also not like I have numbered cases with a documented history to tell me which one is doing what and why. All I know is, it mostly, if not always, seems to only happen with my reloads, and seems to get progressively worse, as that lot gets older.

What I think Im going to do is, put the "newer" extractor back in, after I clean it up a little, and see how that goes. Im not really expecting a change in whats been going on, but hey, you never know. If it does change, then I get to drive myself even more crazy trying to figure out why. :)

jw38
02-22-2012, 09:58
First, I am not "passionate" about anything other than God my Savior Jesus Christ, my family and my country.

"Glock" is a darn tool that's broke and I don't feel like going thru the motions of selling it in order to buy a Smith M&P that has some other cockamamey problem. I am a magnet for gun warts.

So a fix that takes me ten minutes seems to be a no brainer if it actually results in "Glock Perfection".

Second, Glocks of the past were well-known to eject all their fired cases in a hat thrown on the ground. They still do but now the shooter has to wear the hat.

CCI: all of what you say is true, but look, if the gun can be made to work with all ammo, what's not to love?

As for the point about reloaded ammo, well, yes, in any automatic gun mechanism the tendency is to experience more and more failures to function as cases are reloaded. Case dimensions DO change and case heads expand over time. Try reloading for a Remington 742...you get three or four loadings and the gun jams. I hate those guns!

Semiauto cases WILL have a "life expectancy" not necessarily due to actual case failure, but due to dimensional changes of the case head and the inability of the sizing die to reach the entire head due to the position of the case holder. Nature of the beast.

As for the "philosophy" of discussion that these things tend to foster, well, I really don't care whether Glock should have, didn't, might, is worse or better for not making the perfect pistol in the world. What I care about is getting my guns to work 100%. If they don't do it, I will, or find a way, or get rid of the gun.

I don't shoot philosophy, I shoot guns.

My kind of Guy. If ever shtf, 3/4 is the kind of person I want next to me.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 10:32
OK, The factory ammo running without a blip is what Ive had all along, or at least as best as I can remember.


First, thanks jw. I appreciate that.

AK: THANKS for reporting.

This issue is a bu-bear, isn't it?

My gun hits me in the face or along my right arm RIGHT HANDED ONLY with every type of FACTORY ammo I've tried.

Far less so since I did the initial cleanup.

Now, just a moment ago I pulled the slide off my G19 which is a 2010 made gun. The extractor moves smoothly and I have had no problems with this gun yet.

I may try to shoot some more today and see what the second go-round did for my G17.

Dave Nowlin
02-22-2012, 13:08
I'm going to give a very simple answer and the rationale behind it at this point. Undoubtedly some of you already know this but for those who don't I believe this information will be useful. When polishing the top and bottom of the extractor you absolutely need a very flat hard Arkansas stone and just a bit of honing oil. Take the extractor in your hand and add a small amont of honing oil to the face of the stone and lay the top of the extractor flat on the stone and move it from side to side on the stone. Stop occassionaly and look at your work. When 50% to 60% of the side is shiny you can stop. The shiny portion is now your bearing surface and the remainder is slightly recessed and will touch nothing. Now turn the extractor over and do the same to the bottom of it. When finished degrease the extractor and slightly oil it and put it back in the pistol. When you pivot it now it should feel smooth as a babies behind. For those who shoot reloads as I do, you must look at the part and realize where it sits against the pistol when pivoted in completely. This is what limits how far in it can pivot. Remove a very small amount of material from the portion of the extractor that hits the slide and stops the pivoting motion. By removing a very small amount you are allowing the extractor to move in just a little farther to allow for brass wear. While doing this also examine the hook of the extractor and see how flat it lies on the face of the case. If only the very tip touches the case and the rest is very slightly raised above the case, then you must do some very careful polishing on the hook to allow it to lie flat on the case when pivoted in fully. This gives more consistent retention of the case head by the extractor. This will yield more consistent ejection. As Forrest Gump said, "now that's all I'm going to say about that".:supergrin:

dusty_dragon
02-22-2012, 16:03
how can you differ the newer gen.4 extractor from the older gen.4 extractor?

i mean gen. 4 isn't old itself and has 2 different extractors and 2 different ejectors till now.
the ejectors have different numbers, okay, but what about the exctractors?

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 16:17
how can you differ the newer gen.4 extractor from the older gen.4 extractor?

i mean gen. 4 isn't old itself and has 2 different extractors and 2 different ejectors till now.
the ejectors have different numbers, okay, but what about the exctractors?

The older ones don't work.

The newer ones don't work well.

;)

Actually, a good question.

Aquagear
02-22-2012, 16:31
Dave just a quick question, dose your gun have the dull gray finish on the slide or the shiny black finish? I was thinking last night after reading this thread that the grey finish is a little rougher and could hinder the extractor movement, the older black finish is slicker. Most of the newer guns have the grey finish, this could be a minor factor

Dave Nowlin
02-22-2012, 16:53
The finish on my slide is gray and somewhat grainy looking when you examine it closely. In fact when I was working on the trigger in my G30SF I noticed that the slide stop lever had a very rough finish on it. So rough that it didn't move as freely as I thought it should. I took my Dremel and some polishing compound to the portion close to where the frame pin goes through. I didn't remove any finish from the portion you see when it is installed on the pistol. The oxide finish doesn't seem to be done well on the small parts of these pistols.

jw38
02-22-2012, 17:43
OK Guys - I grew up with the saying, the proof is in the pudding. I think the "proof" is in now. I just got back from the indoor range that I shoot at every few days. Did something different today. Left my football helmet and goggles in the bag. Set out my 19 with 100 rounds of 115 fmj and a box of 50 rounds of 124 jhp. Set out my 27 with a box of 50, 180 jhp. Out of 200 rounds between the two Glocks, not the first case on my head, chest, chin or anywhere other than a nice pile in the floor. Granted in a small indoor booth, cases can bounce around some. NOT THIS TIME. My 19 & 27 were flawless! Like an earlier op said - somebody needs to be billing Glock for this information. May I suggest that 3/4 & Dave send an invoice on to Gaston for this repair shown on Glock Talk. Thanks Fellows - Whoever would have thought something so simple would be a cure for such a big problem.

Dave Nowlin
02-22-2012, 17:55
And the bashful little fellow with the red face who wasn't really looking for praise bows and says "Thank you".

ken grant
02-22-2012, 18:03
I fail to understand what effect removing material from the extractor's inner shoulder does for better ejection.

I know it lets the hook move closer to the center but a cartridge in place holds the extractor away from the center even before material is removed.

It seems to me that the extractor shoulder has no effect at all with a cartridge in place.

Dave Nowlin
02-22-2012, 18:14
i beg to differ with you Ken. On my G30SF the extractor didn't pivot in far enough for a reliable hold. It does now. The other point is when more travel is possible then the extractor can grip reloads better as the case head wears. As the extractor pivots inward more it also pivots closer to the breech face.

I promise I don't wish to argue with anyone about this. I'm just sharing my experiences as is Mr.Flap. We are sharing our experiences in the hope that they will help others with the same problem.

ken grant
02-22-2012, 18:21
I don't argue but just don't understand how the inner shoulder comes into play with a cartridge in place. In all my Glocks, the cartridge make the extractor move outward and the shoulder doesn't touch anything.

Whoops!!!! I may have figured it out.
As the barrel unlocks and drops down, the case moves down the breechface and extractor as well.
Maybe at this point the extractor shoulder bottoms out and stops any farther inward movement.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 18:24
Great news, jw!

HAHAHA!!!

The whole thing is really quite hilarious, isn't it!??

How many "experts" even here screamed "LIMPWRIST!!!" and "AMMO!!!" as the cause of "non-existent" Glock problems?

Truth is always better than fiction and YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!

Tomorrow is my turn for another go-round. Will report.

The ABSOLUTE GLOCK TORTURE TEST;

"SHOOTING WITH THE RIGHT HAND ONLY."

Good heavens, what's next...dragging it behind a truck?

captdreifus
02-22-2012, 18:27
I polished my extractor last night after reading this thread.

Previously, I had about 2/10 (20%) of the casings come back and hit my head or the top of my head. After the polish to remove the "lip" or cast mark on the top of the extractor, I had great results.

As of 45 minutes ago, I finished firing a string of 350 rounds. Ammo that I shot were Speer 115gr Lawman, Winchester 147gr Ranger-T, and Winchester 147gr Super-X. Out of that string of fire, I only had 3 or 4 casings come back and hit my head. I consider this a MAJOR improvement.

Granted, I only removed material "polish" the top side of the extractor. I did not remove any material on the underside nor from the "shelf" or "shoulder" area. I will further test with those areas polished this weekend.

It is gratifying that my Generation 3 Glock 19 has made such improvements. I was pretty excited that I could fire magazine after magazine without HOT casings coming back to my face.

I will report back when I have polished the other areas of the extractor and fire another few hundred rounds.

A Happier Glock Customer,
Captdreifus

Dave Nowlin
02-22-2012, 18:27
I think you and I may be talking about different things. If you follow the leg of the extractor which contains the claw down to where it turns 90 degrees away toward the pivot pin. You will see a small pad on that arm. If you remove material from that pad the extractor will swing further in. My guess is the pad is there to allow for adjusting travel. They forgot to tell the Glock Armorers about it. Other wise what is the function of this pad?

ithaca_deerslayer
02-22-2012, 18:31
Look, unless Glock has truly fixed the binding issue, just getting new extractors is not necessarily EVER going to help. The binding in the ejector slot must be eliminated.

Wait, when did the "ejector slot" become part of this discussion?

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 18:43
Wait, when did the "ejector slot" become part of this discussion?


Since I screwed up and hammered "ejector" when I meant "extractor".

Thanks and glad it came from an Ithaca fan.

Me, too.

ak103k
02-22-2012, 18:54
It seems to me that the extractor shoulder has no effect at all with a cartridge in place.
I tend to agree with Ken here, and what hes saying makes sense.

If you use the face of the loaded chamber indicator as a reference, when there is no round present, the indicator is flush with the slide. Put a clean factory round in the gun, and the indicator now sits 0.031" higher than the slide. That leads me to believe that with a round in the gun, the shoulder is also going to be the same distance off its "rest" in the slide, and never will bottom out.

For me, the jurys still out, as Im right back where I was, with reloads having the issue, and factory rounds functioning fine, even with what I think is a worn extractor.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 18:56
Whoops!!!! I may have figured it out.
As the barrel unlocks and drops down, the case moves down the breechface and extractor as well.
Maybe at this point the extractor shoulder bottoms out and stops any farther inward movement.

Beat me to it.

Yup.

The extractor needs;

1} to move freely in/out during the entire rearward slide process till the empty leaves the gun

2} follow the case as the case moves along the bolt face

Really, folks, there is a lot more going on here than the "Limpwristing Did It!!" and "Use Better Ammo!!" crowd would have you believe.

Some of them may be good parts swappers, but they are surely no gunsmiths.

bentbiker
02-22-2012, 21:04
I fail to understand what effect removing material from the extractor's inner shoulder does for better ejection.

I know it lets the hook move closer to the center but a cartridge in place holds the extractor away from the center even before material is removed.

It seems to me that the extractor shoulder has no effect at all with a cartridge in place.
An easy test of what ken is saying: If you have an LCI extractor and it is flush with the slide when the chamber is empty and it stands out as designed when the chamber is loaded, then that shoulder is not limiting rotation. If you have brass that is worn enough to defeat the LCI, you need new brass. Has anyone had success taking material off the shoulder WITHOUT also polishing the top and bottom of the extractor and/or working on the claw?

Edit: Just realized AK said almost exactly the same thing -- but faster.

3/4Flap
02-22-2012, 21:52
An easy test of what ken is saying: If you have an LCI extractor and it is flush with the slide when the chamber is empty and it stands out as designed when the chamber is loaded, then that shoulder is not limiting rotation. If you have brass that is worn enough to defeat the LCI, you need new brass. Has anyone had success taking material off the shoulder WITHOUT also polishing the top and bottom of the extractor and/or working on the claw?

Edit: Just realized AK said almost exactly the same thing -- but faster.

Read my post above.

I believe I also said the same thing three or four pages ago, or on one of the other 42 "Glock ejection sucks" threads running now. I can't remember exactly where.

To repeat; The extractor actually moves as the case slides across the breech face. Reducing the shoulder or "pad" as Dave called it allows the extractor to maintain contact with the case head for a very short period of extra time.

I actually, as I've done the work on mine, come to believe the freeing up of the extractor in the slide slot is more important, but it may be that this additional time also proveds added benefit.

Terry C.
02-22-2012, 22:04
Okay, I promised a pic and here it is. This is how my stoned extractor looks . . .

http://www.fototime.com./%7B07D35D3B-89A8-4334-AD92-6A0CF9199A17%7D/origpict/extractorpolish800.jpg

The only surfaces touched were the top and bottom. And I did it as Dave described, on a flat hard Arkansas stoned lubed with honing oil.

The gritty and binding extractor movement is what I had originally. It was also very difficult to get out of the slot during disassembly. Now it moves freely and will drop out under its own weight.

tinman517
02-22-2012, 22:27
Although, I thankfully have never experienced any of the issues, which you folks have had . . . I have to admire the " Can do/Can fix " attitude, here.

dusty_dragon
02-23-2012, 03:06
i had the probs with a G17 gen.3 with an extractor that moved free and fell out on its own while disassembling. everyone (even in this board) called me a limp wrister and stated i should use more powerful ammo. what really did it for my G17 was getting a .40 ejector installed and a NON LCI extractor. that did the job.

nice to here, that i wasn't the only one called a "limp wrister"

but i'm still very interested in this topic and admire all the brainwork here, perfect guys, that's what i call real enthusiasm, really great work here.

i still have a question:
what exactly do you mean with a dipped and a non-dipped extractor, where should the "dip" be, that differs one from the other and which is older and which newer, and which will work better out of the box?

ken grant
02-23-2012, 07:33
[QUOTE=dusty_dragon;18619227]i had the probs with a G17 gen.3 with an extractor that moved free and fell out on its own while disassembling. everyone (even in this board) called me a limp wrister and stated i should use more powerful ammo. what really did it for my G17 was getting a .40 ejector installed and a NON LCI extractor.


Where did you get the NON LCI extractor?
I would like to get a couple

eaglefrq
02-23-2012, 08:23
I have a Gen 4 G19 brass to the head and a Gen 3 G26 with zero problems.

I swapped the extractors and the G26 still had zero issues and the G19 still had some brass to the head. It appears in my case, the extractor is not the issue.

My thinking by switching them the 26 would develop problems and the 19 would be solved, but that didn't happen.

Dave Nowlin
02-23-2012, 08:40
My Gen 3 27 doesn't give problems either. That's why I studied it to help figure what to do to the G30SF. I really don't think any of the 26s or 27s seem to have this problem. There is evidently some very minor difference in the geometry that we aren't seeing. This problem seems to exist in the mid & full size pistols. There must be some minor difference in the way the slot is cut in the slide for the exxtractor as well as some variations from gun to gun in this respect. This would indicate that if these slides are cut on CNC someone isn't checking for tool wear as often as they should. Then again it may be a combination of that and poor quality of the molded parts. More gun manufacturers seem to be going to these MIM parts and they tell us they are good On the other hand Kimber's quality has been going downhill with these parts as well. Do you suppose we may be recognizing a trend.

3/4Flap
02-23-2012, 09:24
I wonder what the slide speed of the little guns is.

SOME lg frame pistols exhibit LESS problems with higher recoiling ammunition of whatever bullet weight. This is at the core of Radian and others' continuous admonition not to use "weak" {sic} ammunition, I think.

thus, even a poorly made extractor MIGHT work fine in a smaller frame pistol. Just a theory.

As to why the larger frame pistols seem to be problematic even with extractors that work in the smaller ones, well, the above explains it; the "bad" extractor needs to be worked on regardless of the fact that it might work well in a dinky-frame pistol. Again, I'm not being dogmatic, just making a suggestion.

Extraction from a semi and full auto gun is a wondrous thing. It is a FAR more complicated process than many assume.

For a time I owned two Stemple 76/45 submachine guns. From time to time one demanded attention to the extractor and then started breaking extractors. a cheap part, I kept fixing it and studying the process of extraction and came to realize this is a "process". and in a liquid-framed pistol {as the Glock appears to be under highspeed photograhpy during the firing cycle} it must be complex indeed!

And then there are those guns that just plain make extraction a non-issue like many Browning A5's. They just WORK.

I remember my father-in-law's old Belgian that fired thousands of rounds of shot on ducks and geese and...did so with one of its extractors missing. i eventually got around to a detail strip and added the extractor where it needed to be...or didn't need to be as the case was.

Yes, gun mechanisms are fascinating.

You Norwegians will know what I mean when I say many of us have "kruttsjuke!"

Yes, it is a disease... :)

byf43
02-23-2012, 09:25
Wow!!!!!!!:wow:

GREAT information in this thread!!

I've been reading on other forums about guys ready to throw their Glocks into the trash (well, not literally!) regarding the extraction/ejection issues.
(One guy even repeats over and over again about the 'cover-up' and lack of recall for "E Series" Glocks, etc., etc., etc.)

If anyone is old enough to remember the 'good ole days' of 1911s, the 'pros' would TUNE their extractors or TWEAK their extractors (and ejectors, too!) to make the pistol perform better.

They used to take a new 'virgin' case and insert it into the breech and see how well the extractor held the case to the breechface.
IF the extractor needed 'tuning' or 'tweaking', it was done.
(Yes, they 'torqued' the extractor to give more tension, and honed the underside of the extractor 'lip' to allow the rim to 'slide' past it. Heck! I remember polishing the inside of the extractor, where the rim made contact.)

I'm no 'pro', and I've tweaked and tuned a few 1911 extractors in my time.

Dave Nowlin and 3/4Flap have done their homework!!!
GREAT JOB!!!!!

FWIW, all of my Glocks have performed perfectly (sofar!).
I don't usually pay attention to where my empty/ejected cases are going, since I'm payin' attention to my target/sights, but, I've never had a piece of brass come back at me.
(Luck???? Maybe.):supergrin:


A little polishing and 'tweaking' is not a bad thing to do, IF you understand what you're doing (and why).
These Glock pistols are mass-produced. They're not custom-built, one-off marvels from Gaston Glock's High Performance gunsmiths.

Again, Dave Nowlin and 3/4Flap . . .
Well done!!!!!:wavey:

3/4Flap
02-23-2012, 10:01
If anyone is old enough to remember the 'good ole days' of 1911s, the 'pros' would TUNE their extractors or TWEAK their extractors (and ejectors, too!) to make the pistol perform better.


Thank you very much.

I like your injection of the 1911. On several other threads I've mentioned the 1911 as an example of a gun that has been modified in myriad ways JUST TO KEEP IT RUNNING!!!

I was a 1911 fan for many years, and used one for stock shooting for years, but good heavens, while the gun is certainly one of the GREATS, it has warts all over it...bred into it.

A can-be short lifeexpectancy of sear notches, loosening of plunger spring assemblies, and YES, EXTRACTOR issues as well.

As I've mentioned before; Guys; look at the opening of the ejection port that occured on almost all 1911's some 30 or so years ago. THAT is a fix one guy on the SIGForum used to fix Glock ejection problems...and it worked!

These darn things are devices and as such they get tied up sometimes, and sometimes companies do stuff that totally mucks up their own product; witness the ups and downs and finally down and outs of the Winchester firm; the post-64 M70 abortion, the switch back to the pre-64 action, then the slide down in QC of all their guns; cheapening processes, eliminating fitting so you could look clean thru the wrist of the 94's and see daylight on the other side!

And rugers, my FAVORITE bolt action rifles inthe M77MKII/Hawkeye series. I rebed, fix the trigger and bevel the ejector edges and slot edges on every single one I buy...or they don't work right!

Guys, SIG's are done. Smith M&P's have warts. Walther PPQ's are perfect, the rage, but just wait a while!

So now we have Herr Gaston Glock rolling over, rubbing his eyes, popping a squat and dropping a deuce in his own bed.

Hey, it happens!

You want a good, functioning gun?

Fix it yourself or sit around and wait for the company to do it... :whistling:

Or, STOP LIMPWRISTING AND USE BETTER AMMO!!! :rofl:

ken grant
02-23-2012, 10:03
Anyone know where I can get NON-LCI extractors?
Where to get NON-DIP LCI extractors?

I did purchase an extractor for an older pistol without the angle cut to match the slide but have not tried it yet.
Hoping to find some older ones with the angle cut.

diamondd2
02-23-2012, 10:41
I have a Gen 4 G19 brass to the head and a Gen 3 G26 with zero problems.

I swapped the extractors and the G26 still had zero issues and the G19 still had some brass to the head. It appears in my case, the extractor is not the issue.

My thinking by switching them the 26 would develop problems and the 19 would be solved, but that didn't happen.

Probably because the slides are actually out of spec. That's why Glock won't talk, way too much money to replace all them slides. So, adjusting your extractor to to fit the slide is the way to go.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

bentbiker
02-23-2012, 11:21
i still have a question:
what exactly do you mean with a dipped and a non-dipped extractor, where should the "dip" be, that differs one from the other and which is older and which newer, and which will work better out of the box?

Best I can do is this one with the dip across the top edge. The old ones had a totally flat top edge. There have been posts saying that brand new guns were again shipping with non-dipped extractors (insinuating that Glock had returned to the old design/process. That is not correct -- at least not all. My new Gen4 G19 with a test-fire date of 1/30/12 still has the dip. However, the tightness exhibited by a previous dipped extractor was absent, I experienced no issues in first 100 rds. As I typed this, it just occurred to me that I need to try the old "tight" dipped extractor in the Gen4 and find out whether the extractor caused the tightness, or whether the slot caused it.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f107/kaneman23/IMG_3735.jpg


This one from Butch has a circle around the area that is dished out, but you have to have the extractor out of the gun to see/feel that surface:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Glock%20pics/DSC00563.jpg

voyager4520
02-23-2012, 11:28
Both of these are newer extractors, one has the dip and the other doesn't. My G27 had a non-dip extractor exactly like the one in the pictures, test-fire Aug '09.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17481066&postcount=216

dusty_dragon
02-23-2012, 12:34
@bentbiker:
thanks a lot, now i know what "dip" means and refers to.

does the older NON-dip extractor perform better than the newer "dipped exctractor"?

where all the NON dip extractors also always NON LCI extractors, or can there be dipped NON LCI extractors also?

@ken:
got my NON-LCI extractors directly from glock, ordered especially NON-LCI ones, otherwise they would have shipped me the newer LCI-ones!
complete with spring plunger and bearing, changed that all, i also installed s .40 ejector , those parts solved the prob.

3/4Flap
02-23-2012, 12:45
Probably because the slides are actually out of spec.

I've stated this very thing before.

The slide could be out of spec in any of the machined areas OR...depending on the hardness of the extractor and slide , could be brought out of spec by longterm use of an out-of-spec extractor.

For example, Dave noted that "Armorers" should observe the pad on the inside of the extractor as an adjustable seat that can be reduced to correct malfunctions. Indeed, if the SLIDE itself is o-o-s in the first place, the pad might have to be reduced immediately.

Then there is the inside of the extractor slot. Are the slides o-o-s? I don't know.

I agree that monkeying with the slide is a bad job, and should be avoided. Better to fiddle with a cheap part like the extractor.

As you stated, IF the slides are cattywampus, well, Herr Glock has viele Probleme and for sure doesn't want to replace them.

I'm still guessing it is Glock's learning curve on MIM or a poor job by a MIM subcontractor who is no doubt being educated as to the error of his ways by Glock right now, but who knows.

Monkey away, guys, and see if it works.

If it doesn't, well, just buy another piece of crap extractor from der Führer and put up with mediocrity.

By the way, when I started on mine, I had a couple/three shiney high spots like the noponer spots pictured above. Not No Mo.

ken grant
02-23-2012, 14:44
Parts list from Glock. No more NON-LCI extractors,use LCI instead

William Springer
02-23-2012, 14:53
Well Kudos to all,and thank you to Dave , 3/4 Flap & Terry C for those fine pictures, it just go's to show we all belong to a good site. I wanted to point out a couple things to be aware of. 1. the point here is that although this can be a problem and cure for it. It is not cast in stone and you may be having a similar problem but rather in more than just this one area, you need to review all of your contact points and look specifically at the wear marks Terry C."s pictures show a good reference to dressing a suspected area in need of attention I go a little further with polishing the sharp edges left after this dressing as I have had experience where this can cause an increase in friction on the part I am trying to relieve this from, also your particular part may show signs of adjustment needed in more than just one area. each case or part is individual and requires a close inspection. What has worked for me might not work for you especially if there is a definite malfunction in that given area. Be aware that any modifications exhibit a different movement and will react to possibly changing wear areas on other items, they may show up immediately or at any time thereafter, just reinspect if you develop problems in a different area and use those problem solving skills from past experience. 2. unless you are quite experienced and knowledgeable do not alter the hook on the extractor it is very exacting and minute changes make drastic changes in its ability to function just like a trigger sear.The same is true with altering the extractor hook angle which will happen when you change its stopping point, as in increasing final drop in relationship to the breach block face.Greater drop dose not mean greater grip, for more gun smithing info go to the Armory section forums at GT under Gun smithing

dusty_dragon
02-23-2012, 15:16
@ken:
i'm sad to hear that, got my NON-LCIs some years ago, 3-4 if i remember correctly.

High Altitude
02-23-2012, 15:47
Bottom line, no one knows but glock and they aren't talking.

MinnMark
02-29-2012, 19:30
I find it odd that this thread has already been buried down to page 10 of General Glocking. This is only my third or fourth post, and as such, I have little or no credibility, so take this as you wish. I have been shooting a late # Gen 3 G34 since last summer with zero problems, and a late # Gen 3 G19 since the fall. The G19 has been having erratic ejection issues something like 20-30% of the time (forehead, top of head, left, and occasional stovepipes) since new. I had been waiting for the dust to settle before looking into a permanent fix, but I believe that Dave Nowlin's fix is good enough to get me using the G19 from here forward.

I have taken it out 3 times in the past week and a half after doing the work, and out of 150 rounds, none have ejected in a position away from 4 o'clock. Almost all shells have been hitting the lane divider wall just past my right shoulder. I have specifically asked my shooting partner to pay attention. I had it apart to install a Ghost Rocket connector, extended mag release, and extended slide stop lever. I also did a 25 cent trigger job. While I had it apart, I took out the extractor, and smoothed both the upper and bottom face with a small jeweler's file about the size of a small emory board. I did not even remove enough material to remove all of the black, I just smoothed some of the irregular high spots that showed wear. I also polished the post, removing all the black, but no additional material. I left the claw alone, and left the stepped area alone also. It now shoots very well. I am very happy with the trigger feel by the way also. Thanks a lot Dave!

dusty_dragon
03-01-2012, 03:03
dear minnmark:
so you did just polish the extractor top and bottom and filed the little knob on the inside of the extractor to give it more/longer contact to the spent brass while extracting it? or what else exactly did you do to solve your problem?

best regards
dusty

MinnMark
03-01-2012, 05:39
dusty_dragon, I dragged a very small, fine, flat file across the top and bottom faces of the extractor very lightly. If you have shot your pistol a lot you should be able to see some brighter worn areas as shown in some photos in other threads. It is easily done because the surfaces are flat. I really just removed some of the blackened finish, but not close to all of the black finish on these surfaces. I just smoothed out some very small irregularities. I then used a Dremmel polishing wheel to remove the black surface finish from the small tapered cylindrical post. A Dremmel polishing wheel removes the black surface treatment very easily and does no damage. I would be afraid that using a file for this post would be difficult since it is a small curved surface and you might quickly remove too much material, or cause some flat spots on the cylinder. I did not do anything to the claw. I think by doing this, it just allows the extractor to move more freely and do it's job. The surface imperfections probably were causing unwanted friction preventing the spring tension on the extractor to push the claw in to grab the shell effectively every time.

Mark

dusty_dragon
03-01-2012, 05:51
thanks a lot for the info

CVN76
03-01-2012, 15:11
Thanks for posting all this information, but wow, on two new guns: first I swap out the RSA, then I learn Glock has a redesigned the Gen 4 ejectors and I am getting that work done, and now today I read also the extractor needs work? I bought these thinking they would be the most reliable guns around; so far it has been a little frustrating.

Dave Nowlin
03-01-2012, 18:01
They are fine once you work the bugs out. Many things today have bugs in them when you buy. Microsoft is constantly updating their software as it is never fully developed when released. Americans demand cheap prices in the marketplace. So we must buy mass produced guns. Some of them need just a little tuning to make them right, that is unless brass hitting you in the face is no big deal. Some have claimed it isn't a big deal and maybe the brass hitting them in the face is making improvements. Who knows? :rofl:

RockyMtnG20
03-01-2012, 20:44
My buddy's new Gen 4 G22 is also plagued with erratic ejecting brass. Guess there isn't much chance of it fixing itself with more rounds going through it?

glocktecher
03-01-2012, 21:15
Sitting here trying the best I can to figure out why Glock does not fix the problem coming out of the factory?

Guess I am just old fashioned and goofy that way.

Dave Nowlin
03-01-2012, 22:47
How many Colt 1911s were sold that needed the extractor tuned. If you know much about 1911s you will realize a whole industry has grown up to make them what they should have been. An ex-boss of mine sent me home from the office with a 1911 he had bought from a Navy Chief Petty Officer in the past. My boss had been a Naval Aviator. He said the gun didn't function right and asked me to look at it and see if I could fix it. Actually all it needed was a new recoil spring. I did some checking while I had it and found it was built between World War I and World War II. The gun was much tighter fitted up than any new 1991 form Colt I had ever seen. I took it apart and the rails hadn't been peened or anything else extraordinary done to it. The sights on it were tiny and inadequate, but it still shot well. All the model 70 & 80 Colts I ever saw were very loose and needed some work to reach their potential. That market created companies like Kimber & the Custom Springfields, Wilsons, Ed Browns, Les Baers and so on.

lawboy
03-02-2012, 09:42
While I am not seeing malfunctions with my Gen 3 G19, I do get occasional brass to the head and face. At present, I have the old ejector and LCI extractor.

The extractor drops freely when doing a detail strip and pressing on the striker block. That being the case, should I attempt filing the top and bottom of the extractor, since it already drops freely?

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 09:49
While I am not seeing malfunctions with my Gen 3 G19, I do get occasional brass to the head and face. At present, I have the old ejector and LCI extractor.

The extractor drops freely when doing a detail strip and pressing on the striker block. That being the case, should I attempt filing the top and bottom of the extractor, since it already drops freely?

Have you read this entire thread in detail? There's more to the modifications/polishing than just "filing the top and bottom" of your extractor.

lawboy
03-02-2012, 09:55
Have you read this entire thread in detail? There's more to the modifications/polishing than just "filing the top and bottom" of your extractor.

I have, but I am trying to do one thing at a time and check the results after each mod. With the extractor falling freely from the slide already, I was just curious as to whether this step should be skipped.

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 09:57
I have, but I am trying to do one thing at a time and check the results after each mod. With the extractor falling freely from the slide already, I was just curious as to whether this step should be skipped.

I would think your next step is to stone/polish off a slight ammount of material where the extractor hits the frame. You'll have to go back through the thread to see the pictures to see what I'm talking about.

ballr4lyf
03-02-2012, 10:45
This is great stuff, but I'm not comfortable performing this type of work.

Does anybody know of a place where I can purchase an extractor that is already within the correct specs? Of all my family, friends, and coworkers I am the "gun guy", so I don't have anybody that I can trust to do this work for me.

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 11:55
This is great stuff, but I'm not comfortable performing this type of work.

Does anybody know of a place where I can purchase an extractor that is already within the correct specs? Of all my family, friends, and coworkers I am the "gun guy", so I don't have anybody that I can trust to do this work for me.

Dude, seriously....this stuff is beyond easy. If you screw it up, a new extractor is like $5.

ken grant
03-02-2012, 12:19
I would think your next step is to stone/polish off a slight ammount of material where the extractor hits the frame. You'll have to go back through the thread to see the pictures to see what I'm talking about.

I can't see what effect stoning/polishing the extractor/frame contact has.:dunno:

With a case in the pistol, the extractor doesn't contact the frame surface at the stop point.
Even with the barrel dropped down, the case stills holds the extractor off the frame..

At least that is what my pistols do. The only time the frame stops the extractor is with no case in place.

AA#5
03-02-2012, 12:33
Thanks for posting all this information, but wow, on two new guns: first I swap out the RSA, then I learn Glock has a redesigned the Gen 4 ejectors and I am getting that work done, and now today I read also the extractor needs work? I bought these thinking they would be the most reliable guns around; so far it has been a little frustrating.

Glocks USED to be one of the most reliable guns around.

GLock's reliability has gone & left no forwarding address.

AA#5
03-02-2012, 12:35
Bottom line, no one knows but glock and they aren't talking.

:supergrin: They'll never talk. That's like expecting a drug company to explain why their drug killed so many patients.

ak103k
03-02-2012, 12:44
Glocks USED to be one of the most reliable guns around.
Mine (I have 11) all seem to be OK.

I shot another 300 rounds yesterday with the same 17 I used last time around with the "old" extractor. I swapped the "new" one back, after I cleaned it up. 200 rounds of reloads, 4 cases to the head. 100 rounds of factory WWB, 0 cases to the head. This time around, the reloads did seem to eject a little better, but that not always a true indicator. Sometimes I only get a few, another time, I get a bunch. I swear it depends on the brass.

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 12:51
I can't see what effect stoning/polishing the extractor/frame contact has.:dunno:

With a case in the pistol, the extractor doesn't contact the frame surface at the stop point.
Even with the barrel dropped down, the case stills holds the extractor off the frame..

At least that is what my pistols do. The only time the frame stops the extractor is with no case in place.

It allows more movement of the extractor, and more positive contact with the case. Current GLOCK pistols seem to have issues with the way the slides and extractors are made, so it helps with ejection to work the contact area.

ak103k
03-02-2012, 12:58
It allows more movement of the extractor,
I think youre missing Kens point. When there is a case present, the point where you say to remove material on the extractor, cant contact the slide, as the case keeps it away from it.

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 13:06
I think youre missing Kens point. When there is a case present, the point where you say to remove material on the extractor, cant contact the slide, as the case keeps it away from it.

Right....when the extractor is properly sized and properly functioning

But if the spec is far out enough, if that contact point is too far out, the extractor is never really making proper contact during the firing cycle. The point is that the current extractors (or possibly the slide milling) seem to be really out of spec.

ken grant
03-02-2012, 13:18
The only way I see to increase positive extractor contact with the case is to use a stronger plunger spring or use an old non-LCI springloaded bearing which has a thicker head than the LCI bearing. Even then you will most likely have to cut the tail off the bearing so it will not bottom out on the plunger.

Another way is to re-work the hook on the extractor itself but I don't think anyone will try that.

My pistols seem to have properly fitting extractors and only my 19 & 26 gives me the crazy ejections.

My 19 is from Dec.2009 and has the dip extractor but my 26 is from 2005 and has the non-dip extractor.
I put 2 new non-dip LCI extractors in both but they made no difference.

ak103k
03-02-2012, 13:18
But if the spec is far out enough
If what youre saying is right, and the extractor and/or slide were that far out of spec, then the outer edge of the extractor would not be flush with the slide when the case wasnt present.

All my Glocks extractors (with LCI) sit flush when the case isnt present, including the ones that seem to have an issue (with my reloads). Put a case under the extractor, and the LCI sticks out, because the case lifts it off its resting point on the slide.

M&P15T
03-02-2012, 13:37
Another way is to re-work the hook on the extractor itself but I don't think anyone will try that.

Reading this thread, gently stoning the hook is what was done by Dave, if I read it correctly.

Question? Do your extractors fall right out of your slides, or do they require force to come out?

If what youre saying is right, and the extractor and/or slide were that far out of spec, then the outer edge of the extractor would not be flush with the slide when the case wasnt present.

All my Glocks extractors (with LCI) sit flush when the case isnt present, including the ones that seem to have an issue (with my reloads). Put a case under the extractor, and the LCI sticks out, because the case lifts it off its resting point on the slide.

It's impossible for me to determine if stoning the contact point actually helps, but worst case scenario is it makes no difference. It could be that stoning that contact point works in some way that's not entirely obvious.


It could also be, that stoning that contact point in some way allows the extractor's gripping point to actually be closer to the breech face, and in that way helping to hold the spent casing longer/tighter for better ejection. I'll take my GEN3 G17C apart later this evening to take a closer look, as it's been hitting me in the head with cases the last few times I've shot. FYI my G17C is at least 3-4 years old.

ballr4lyf
03-02-2012, 13:47
Dude, seriously....this stuff is beyond easy. If you screw it up, a new extractor is like $5.

Easy or not was not the question... It is beyond my comfort level.

Writing a C++ program to determine the sum of all prime numbers under 2 billion is easy, but I am pretty sure that it is outside most people's comfort level.

I am not a gunsmith, nor a "garage gunsmith", nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :tongueout:

EDIT: Let me put it this way, I have detail stripped my glock and have held the extractor in my hand... I know that I cannot work to the level of detail required to get this done properly--my hands just aren't that steady.

ken grant
03-02-2012, 13:48
Reading this thread, gently stoning the hook is what was done by Dave, if I read it correctly.

I don't think gently stoning will work. I was thinking about a major re-work to have more contact area.

Question? Do your extractors fall right out of your slides, or do they require force to come out?

Yep, they fall right out



It's impossible for me to determine if stoning the contact point actually helps, but worst case scenario is it makes no difference. It could be that stoning that contact point works in some way that's not entirely obvious.


It could also be, that stoning that contact point in some way allows the extractor's gripping point to actually be closer to the breech face, and in that way helping to hold the spent casing longer/tighter for better ejection. I'll take my GEN3 G17C apart later this evening to take a closer look, as it's been hitting me in the head with cases the last few times I've shot. FYI my G17C is at least 3-4 years old.

Stoning the contact point will let the extractor move closer to the C/L of the breech face but with a case in place even with the barrel dropped to it's lowest point, the case still keeps the contact points from touching at all.

ak103k
03-02-2012, 13:52
Obviously, this fix seems to be helping some, I just havent seen any real difference with the couple of extractors Ive tried it with mine.

Im still seeing the problem with my reloads, and still so far, none at all with factory. That still leads me to believe it might be the brass issue, but who knows. Now if I was having the problem with factory, Id probably have a different opinion. :)

Ill keep watching this and the other threads with interest, and keep fiddling. Hey, I wonder what would happen if I just left it out all together. Think it would work like a P7? :supergrin:

dusty_dragon
03-02-2012, 14:33
@ken grant:

1.
what part exactly is thicker with the older non-LCI extractor? what do you mean with "thicker head"

2.
you mean to cut of a little bit of the plastic tail of the non-LCI spring loaded bearing to give the spring more way to get compressed, instead of the extractor depressor plunger hitting the tail of the spring loaded bearing when it has still a long tail, right?

ken grant
03-02-2012, 14:56
#1---- The spring loaded bearing head is thicker on the ones for the non-LCI,s
Two different bearings for LCI's & non-LCI's

#2--- It was just an idea on my part. Have not tried it yet.
I did take a look at it and decided that the bearing for the LCI ext. would not push into the recess to let a thicker head fit.
I believe the bearing bottoms out on the plunger.

I will try a non-LCI bearing( thickerhead) that I have on hand to see if it will increase spring pressure on the extractor. I am sure it will bottom out so I will cut just a little off the tail.

dusty_dragon
03-02-2012, 15:29
thanks for the explanation, ken. still some questions:

#1
with "thicker" you mean the diameter of the plastic bearing is larger, or that it is longer than the LCI bearing?

if wider in diameter:
is the channel in the slide for the thicker non-LCI bearing also wider in diameter? otherwise a bearing with larger diameter (thicker) won't fit the channel of the plunger, spring etc., right?

#2
can the non-LCI and also the LCI extractor be used with the same bearing, spring and plunger vice versa, although diffferent (thicker) bearings exist?

#3
are the plunger and the spring the same with LCI and non-LCI extractor and just the bearing is different, or are the plunger and spring also different?

ken grant
03-02-2012, 15:42
#1-----longer
#2----- not according to Glock. different bearings for each.
#3----- Same plunger and spring, different bearings

dusty_dragon
03-02-2012, 16:04
roger that, thanks a lot, buddy

can you figure out what sense the older, longer bearing will make with the same spring and plunger used on both versions?

ken grant
03-02-2012, 16:24
I figured the thicker(longer) head would put just a little more spring pressure on the plunger which would lead to more pressure on the extractor to engage the empty case.

As the bearing with the thinner head will not depress enough in the slide to accept a thicker head, I think the bearing bottoms out on the plunger.
As I think the thicker head bearing will do the same, I would take a little off the tail of the bearing.

As i have not tried this, I am only guessing but it does make sense to my eyes.

dusty_dragon
03-02-2012, 16:31
right, sounds the same to me, just let me /us know, when you tried it out and what happened

Ruze789
03-02-2012, 17:03
Thanks to all who have shared info in this thread. I have a new Gen3 G17 with a whole lotta erratic ejections so I'll be doing some extractor polishing this weekend to start. If that doesn't help I'll be calling Glock to see if I can get the newer ejector to replace the 336 that's in mine.

dusty_dragon
03-02-2012, 17:16
when i had the problems with my gen.3 G17 years ago, there was no 4th gen. and so no new ejector available, the 336 was the newest one, so there was no help from another different 9mm ejector.

i fixed the prob by using the ejector of the .40S&W that was current at that point of time and also by using the older non-LCI extractor.

the use of the .40S&W ejector was a great improvement, it hits the brass more to the right and gives it a different twist/angle while extracted/ejected, but this alone didn't solve the prob 100%, but in combination with the older non-LCI extractor, my brass-to-the-head-problem was solved 100%.

i also own a gen.3 G19 with the LCI extractor and the 336 ejector and with that G19 i never had any brass-to-head-issues. weird and funny.

btw:
does anyone know if i'd use a gen.4 "." dot connector in a gen. 3 G19 with gen. 3 trigger bar (like it is supposed to be), will it have a lighter or a heavier trigger pull, compared to a "-" minus connector in a gen. 3 G19 with gen. 3 trigger bar?

Glockpotion23
03-02-2012, 17:57
details?
Man, just reading what you have..nice arsenal

sigpro-fessor
03-03-2012, 01:38
waiting on the Apex extractors...

M&P15T
03-03-2012, 06:58
I went home last night and detail stripped my slide. My extractor is tight in the slide (I had to pry it out), and has wear marks at certain contact points. The last time I shot, a few cases smacked me in the face, so I'm going to do some stoning/polishing and see if it helps.

ak103k
03-03-2012, 07:11
Just curious, but was the extractor and cut also loaded with crud when you got it out?

I noticed on mine that Ive removed, there was a lot of junk in the cut and around the extractor, even though I try to blast it out now and then while cleaning with air and/or Gun Scrubber.

I wonder if that doenst also contribute to the problem, especially if the fit is tight to start with.

M&P15T
03-03-2012, 07:15
Just curious, but was the extractor and cut also loaded with crud when you got it out?

I noticed on mine that Ive removed, there was a lot of junk in the cut and around the extractor, even though I try to blast it out now and then while cleaning with air and/or Gun Scrubber.

I wonder if that doenst also contribute to the problem, especially if the fit is tight to start with.

No, I detail strip my slide quite often, cleaning that area thoroughly. But I would think you are on the right track.....an already tight fit, coupled with debris getting into that area over time, relates to extraction/ejection issues that seem to develop over time, which is what most people report.

Arc Angel
03-04-2012, 06:27
....... i also own a gen.3 G19 with the LCI extractor and the 336 ejector and with that G19 i never had any brass-to-head-issues. weird and funny.

btw:
does anyone know if i'd use a gen.4 "." dot connector in a gen. 3 G19 with gen. 3 trigger bar (like it is supposed to be), will it have a lighter or a heavier trigger pull, compared to a "-" minus connector in a gen. 3 G19 with gen. 3 trigger bar?

Me, too! From what I've been reading about 3rd gen. pistols there is a slight reduction in trigger pull weight with the, '.' connector over the factory standard, '-' connector.

(Don't own one; so I can't say from personal experience. The, '-' connectors I'm using, now, are certainly good enough that I feel no need to run right out and try something different, though.)

dusty_dragon
03-04-2012, 06:33
okay, so it is possible to use a gen. 4 "." dot connector in a gen.3 G17 or gen.3 G19 and it should assumingly reduce the weight of pull even a little bit more than the "-" minus gen.3 connector, right?

Arc Angel
03-04-2012, 06:54
okay, so it is possible to use a gen. 4 "." dot connector in a gen.3 G17 or gen.3 G19 and it should assumingly reduce the weight of pull even a little bit more than the "-" minus gen.3 connector, right?

Well, I see we're both on the internet at the same time! :supergrin:

This is what I've been reading; but, like I said, I have no personal experience with it. I'll tell you a little secret, though: Whenever I'm really stuck on a question like this I'll call one of the large aftermarket Glock parts suppliers, and speak to their tech support people.

Why? Because, too often, you can't trust the internet to give you the right answer; and, when dealing with Smyrna, you just never really know.

dusty_dragon
03-04-2012, 07:10
yes, seems we have to much spare time, hah:supergrin:

what you said about the aftermarket part retailers and glock itself is absolutely correct, i often encountered the fact, that the people in the factory (no matter where or what) have much less clue and idea of their product, than the real "freaks" (in a very positive sense) in the aftermarket zone or the user zone :wavey:

lawboy
03-04-2012, 15:21
Take this for what it's worth:

As stated earlier, my Gen 3 G19 has never malfunctioned, but does spit brass to the face on occasion. The extractor that came with the gun is the LCI with the dip, with a "2" on the post. I ordered a new extractor, still an LCI with the dip, but this one has a "3" printed on the post. I tried the new extractor with 100 rounds of WWB, and while there were still no malfunctions, the brass to the face continued. The old extractor would drop free when doing a detail strip, while the new one had to be shaken out.

I took an Arkansas stone and some oil and rubbed the flat sides of the new extractor lightly in circular motions on both sides. This took some of the black off of the part but not much. After finishing, the sides of the extractor were very smooth, and it would drop freely from the silde with no effort.

After 100 more rounds of WWB today, every round ejected to the right and slightly back (3:30 - 4:00) in, dare I say it, a neat little pile.

I'm not sure what the difference between the "2" and "3" on the extractors mean, or if that has anything to do with it, but I'm happy.

Arc Angel
03-04-2012, 16:16
....... I'm not sure what the difference between the "2" and "3" on the extractors mean, or if that has anything to do with it, but I'm happy.

My Gen3 G-19 came with a molded #2 extractor, as well. Serendipitously (That's actually a word!) I polished my #2 extractor before I fired the pistol. It was sticking; but, after polishing, it began to fall free.

I've already got an investment cast LWD extractor for a backup; but, at the same time, I've decided to continue using the original #2 extractor. So far I've been through, about, 3,000 rounds with absolutely no complaints.

voyager4520
03-05-2012, 19:36
okay, so it is possible to use a gen. 4 "." dot connector in a gen.3 G17 or gen.3 G19 and it should assumingly reduce the weight of pull even a little bit more than the "-" minus gen.3 connector, right?
In a Gen3, the - connector gives about a 4.5lbs pull, the dot connector gives about a 5lbs pull, and the standard connector gives about 5.5lbs. In a Gen4, the - connector is just under 5lbs, the dot connector is about 5.5lbs, the regular connector is nearly 6lbs.

The dot connector is "in between" the minus and standard connectors.

dusty_dragon
03-06-2012, 03:25
okay, so no need to change the "-" minus connector to a "." dot connector on a 3rd gen. glock, cause you'll only increase trigger weight

Noponer
03-07-2012, 13:58
I really could not figure what all the fuss was about... my Glocks (over 30 during the past 20 years) have always worked fine - even the Gen4 G19 I had for a while. I could not find any spare parts for the Gen4 at the time I got it, so I got rid of it (I want my spare parts!). I traded the Gen4 19 for a like-new recent-production G26. I loved the little gun, but had shot it less than 100 rounds as of today. I had chronoed some Win 127 gr +p+ rounds & the gun functioned OK with them.

I am one of the shooters here on GT that had some chipping of my barrel lug - on the 26. After removing the MGSL (whether at fault or not), I polished out the chips. Today, I went to my backyard range to fire off some more of the +p+ rounds with the OEM slide lock in place to see if any chipping happened. No chipping; good!

But.........every other round left its case stuck half in the chamber with the slide almost all the way back... a jam! :wow: What the heck? :dunno:The extractor was slipping off the rim again & again. I began blaming the 18# Wolff recoil spring assembly (stock is 16#). But, just in case, I ground down the extractor a little on both sides with fine sand paper (on a flat surface) & then polished both sides with a Dremel tool buffing wheel.

I went to the range again with several combinations of ammo, spring weights, etc. to do some testing to find the problem. I started with the same ammo (127 +p+) & shot 2 mags full (24 rounds) I got not one failure-to-extract! I did not have try any of the other ammo or springs; the problem seems to be solved.... thanks to this thread. - :supergrin:

Dang MIM extractors! -:steamed:

bentbiker
03-07-2012, 14:19
I ground down the extractor a little on both sides with fine sand paper (on a flat surface) & then polished both sides with a Dremel tool buffing wheel . . . not one failure-to-extract!
But, to clarify, you didn't take anything off the shoulder that limits the inward movement of the extractor . . . right?

Noponer
03-07-2012, 18:47
But, to clarify, you didn't take anything off the shoulder that limits the inward movement of the extractor . . . right?

Right. I did not take any off that shoulder.

I don't see how that would hold the cartridge tighter as mention somewhere above. That shoulder does not touch the slide when a cartridge is in place. The extractor is held out by the cartridge.

....just as you said in post #11.

Fastfordsrus
03-07-2012, 18:56
Right. I did not take any off that shoulder.

I don't see how that would hold the cartridge tighter as mention somewhere above. That shoulder does not touch the slide when a cartridge is in place. The extractor is held out by the cartridge.

....just as you said in post #11.


I did this to my 34 extractor (with the dip in it) and it fixed the issue...nothing off the shoulder just smoothed and polished sides and the post that sits around the firing pin safety.

Tiro Fijo
03-07-2012, 22:25
...But.........every other round left its case stuck half in the chamber with the slide almost all the way back... a jam! :wow: What the heck? :dunno:The extractor was slipping off the rim again & again...


NOT the extractor. It's the ammo. I had the same thing happen in my Gen4 G19 & some other 9mm's. I miked the case heads: WAY under spec.

Win. is in the process of moving their ammo production to Mississippi from IL and has told the workers this for some time. I'll let you figure out why QC is in the crapper. Hint: far less pay and unable to sell their homes in IL. :whistling:

Noponer
03-08-2012, 08:39
NOT the extractor. It's the ammo. I had the same thing happen in my Gen4 G19 & some other 9mm's. I miked the case heads: WAY under spec.

Win. is in the process of moving their ammo production to Mississippi from IL and has told the workers this for some time. I'll let you figure out why QC is in the crapper. Hint: far less pay and unable to sell their homes in IL. :whistling:

See new post below about this.....

I don't think it is the the ammo. I measured the heads, too... outer O.D. & groove O.D. - same as other rounds I have. Also, the extraction problem was gone after I worked on the extractor. And... have some Win 124 gr +p T series which worked fine; I would assume made in the same place.

However, I believe I will be trading the 127 gr +p+'s for something else, anyway. They have a little snap than I like for the G26.

Noponer
03-09-2012, 10:37
I don't think it is the the ammo. I measured the heads, too... outer O.D. & groove O.D. - same as other rounds I have. Also, the extraction problem was gone after I worked on the extractor. And... have some Win 124 gr +p T series which worked fine; I would assume made in the same place.

However, I believe I will be trading the 127 gr +p+'s for something else, anyway. They have a little snap than I like for the G26.

Correction...

OK, I should say that I don't think it is entirely the ammo, since the problem appears gone after reworking the extractor.

However, after measuring more 9x19 cases on hand, the Win 127 gr +p+ cases do have shallower grooves that most others I measured (Cor-bon, Speer, etc.)... from .002" to .004" on each side. Not a lot, but not good, considering how small the rim is anyway.

But..... I found another post where a shooter's G26 worked fine with all ball ammo, but failed to extract Cor-Bon 115 gr +p as well as the Win 127 gr +p+. I think the MIM extractor is the main culprit & hot loads tend to make the problem worse. The primers on the Win & Cor-Bon I used all had severe striker swipes, indicating the rounds made the gun come out lock-up very soon in the cycle. If the barrel is moving down soon enough to do that, it is probably moving the case head down & out of the extractor's grasp before the case comes out of the chamber enough.

Aquagear
03-09-2012, 18:07
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models):wavey:

diamondd2
03-10-2012, 04:30
Right. I did not take any off that shoulder.

I don't see how that would hold the cartridge tighter as mention somewhere above. That shoulder does not touch the slide when a cartridge is in place. The extractor is held out by the cartridge.

....just as you said in post #11.


I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.

Ridder
03-10-2012, 05:19
I have a G34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor.

I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???

Arc Angel
03-10-2012, 06:37
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models)

I think that observation is very astute of you!

Glock's, 'new gray finish' is, truth be known, the result of a faster cheaper way to nitrocarburize the slide. Because of less heating and more rapid cooling during this new nitrocarburizing process the slide surfaces are left feeling gritty and that gray powder-like coating comes off a lot easier, too. Is the coefficient-of-friction on the slide's surface greater? I think you're correct; it, probably, is.

I've got a cheaply molded, #2 (MIM?) extractor in my newest G-19 Glock, too. Even though this Glock has the old polymer-impregnated oil coating on it, the extractor did stick when I, first, disassembled the slide. I polished the heck out of the top and bottom flat surfaces; and, through its first 3,000 rounds, I haven't had any sort of ejection problem.

Is this trouble-free operation the result of, both, my polishing AND the old slick surface finish on the slide? I don't know; however, like all things Glock, the answer(s) to this problem are both inconsistent and elusive. Still, what you've suggested is worth keeping in mind. Thanks!

I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.

Yeah! Perhaps because these new molded extractors no longer grab the case rim as firmly and positively as they used to. I'm, also, going to suggest that Glock's old polymer frame bugaboo - 'harmonic vibration' - is another contributing factor to this problem.

I have a G-34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor. I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not? ....

It very well might; but, then again, in my experience so does simply polishing the upper and lower extractor surfaces. (Very slightly reducing the inside shoulder might, too; but, in my opinion, this is a direct result of increasing, 'the bite' of the extractor claw on the rim.) The only thing that's for certain is new Glock pistols would be a lot better off if the factory stopped screwing around with production costs and went back to their former ways of doing things.

donovan655
03-10-2012, 09:46
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models):wavey:
I second Arc Angel...this is an unexplored variable that most certainly could cause the issue.

The 336 ejector has worked fine for years. All of a sudden gen 3 9mms start having ejection issues. Two things have changed that are easily known: the finish and the ejector.

There is a high possibility that both changes are causing issues.

However, my brand new gen 4 has the older style finish as best as I could tell and the same extractor. I still get erratic ejection and the rare casing to the forehead. However, my wife, a fairly inexperienced shooter, gets foreheaded regularly. I can pick up the same gun, same ammo, same magazine and get the occasional casing to the forehead. I do think shooting experience plays a role. Is it 90% or 10%...who knows. There are an astonishingly high number of new shooters out there...FBI background checks and black friday sales show that.

I stripped the slide on both my late model gen 3 g19 and my new gen 4 g 19. The extractor was fairly loose in both pistols. It didn't fall right out but it didn't need to be pryed out either.

When Todd Green changed the extractor to an older style extractor, his gen 4 g17 ran like a champ. His g17 was a fairly early model that had severe stovepipe issues.

I've also watched hickok45 videos multiple times and his gen 2 and gen3 g19 have displayed erratic ejection and I can estimate about 3 forehead hits. So is erratic ejection in the g19 really something all that new? Or is it something that has gotten worse with the recent changes?

Why would Glock change the ejector rather than the extractor? That baffles me.

Other background issues may be a drop in QC attention and good QC culture due to issues and controversey with Gaston Glock, his family, and CEOs getting tried for racketeering. employee morale may be very low.

Personally, I can deal with the occassional brass to the forehead. The erratic ejection is something I can live with also because I've yet to experience a stoppage. This is with all ammo types.


Finish issues and incompatibility between the extractor and slide is something that could help explain the erratic ejection. Throw in tolerance stacking and you are almost guaranteed to have ejection problems.

Polishing the extractor and its apparent success seems to indicate that the finish issue may be more pertinent than most think.

sigpro-fessor
03-10-2012, 11:07
I have a G34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor.

I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???

performance seems worse with the LW extractors. Just got two in yesterday.

Arc Angel
03-10-2012, 11:52
performance seems worse with the LW extractors. Just got two in yesterday.

Yikes! I bought one too; but, instead of installing it I just threw it in my, 'Glock Box'. I suspect you're right, though. Th LWD extractor I've got, now, is the most poorly finished product I have ever received from Lone Wolf.

Even after polishing it up the flats are still noticeably striated and rough looking. If I had it to do over again, I'd simply order a #3 Glock extractor and polish it down to a slightly smaller size. (The highly polished #2 Glock extractor I've got in the pistol, now, is working just fine!)

Ridder
03-10-2012, 12:19
The extractor in my G34 is a "3"
It has the dip.
After 2000 rounds fired it drops out by itself easily.

Are the Glock 9mm with LCI-extractors that are being sold in the webshops (like GP) the same as the one I have now?

diamondd2
03-10-2012, 12:46
I just got a new NON-DIP LCI glock 9mm extractor. I got to say it feels tighter in the slide than the DIP extractor. But I do have a 1200 rds on the original dip extractor.

Zertek
03-10-2012, 13:40
I can't believe Glock dumped this crap on us !!!!!! to the extent out of desperation we are experimenting with all of this garbage, unbelievable.....are we really that stupid? guess so.

ken grant
03-10-2012, 14:45
I exchanged non-dip extractors for the dip extractors in my 19 and 26 and ejection got worse in both of them.

Tried polishing the one in the 19 but no change.

Going back to the dip extractors and will try the polish on them.

Thinking about trying a spring loaded bearing for a non-LCI as it has a thicker head than the one for a LCI.
seems to me it would increase spring tension by a small amount on the plunger.

Anyone tried this?

Noponer
03-10-2012, 15:58
I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.

Maybe so, but I doubt that has much to do with the ejection pattern (& certainly nothing to do with my partial extraction problem).

Once the ejector bumps the cartridge out, I think the extractor is out of play. The shiny spot on the extractor's shoulder is made when the extractor goes inward with no cartridge.

Fastfordsrus
03-10-2012, 20:48
I am going to add a whole new dilemma here I think.. I have a gen 3 08/2008 glossy finished 17 with a stainless guide uncaptured guide rod and NONdip extractor, that I have polished every moving piece of steel that comes off of the slide. It works flawlessly. I have a 12/2011 gen 3 34 dip extractor with factory guide rod that was kind of erractic ejecting UNTIL I polished both sides of the extractor now it hits me in the head EVERY single time. I took both guns shooting today and I first switched the slides to rule out the ejectors being a problem. The brass still hit me in the head. Next I switched the extractors....same problem. Then I switched the plunger, spring and bearing, same and I was using federal ammo which feeds fine from my 17 but not the 34. I also fired five rounds of Hornady factory FTX which also hit me. I took both slides off the guns and put a round in the extractor so I could see how it was contacting on 17 compared to 34... the extractor on the 34 sat at an angle on the brass where it contacted vs. being flat on the side of the brass on my 17. I slowly filed and sanded until they both sat the same against the brass. Still the same. I am really irritated now and not sure what I am going to try next.

diamondd2
03-11-2012, 05:22
Maybe so, but I doubt that has much to do with the ejection pattern (& certainly nothing to do with my partial extraction problem).

Once the ejector bumps the cartridge out, I think the extractor is out of play. The shiny spot on the extractor's shoulder is made when the extractor goes inward with no cartridge.


Let me clarify my thoughts here. What I meant is that I believe the extractor shoulder touches the slide before the cartridge is fully released from the extractor. As the cartridge gets pushed by the ejector it pivots in the extractor claw. And right before it the cartridge rim gets released from the extractor claw is when I believe the shoulder of the extractor hits the slide.

Arc Angel
03-11-2012, 05:24
....... Still the same. I am really irritated now and not sure what I am going to try next.

The only thing I don't see mentioned is the ejector. Are you using a #30274? The other thing I'm wondering is just how tightly the claw is grasping the cartridge rim?

Other than this I think Zertek is, also, correct. This really is a nutty conversation! Are, 'we' actually that stupid? Well, I don't see where anything has really changed all that much in the 9 years I've been following GT. (Except for, maybe, the excuses - They keep on getting better and better!)

Maybe so, but I doubt that has much to do with the ejection pattern (& certainly nothing to do with my partial extraction problem).

Once the ejector bumps the cartridge out, I think the extractor is out of play. The shiny spot on the extractor's shoulder is made when the extractor goes inward with no cartridge.

Personally, I think the ejector and extractor are BOTH involved. The way I see it, the extractor is pulling the case out of the chamber in an erratic fashion. Erratically extracted cases are coming into contact with the ejector arm at an odd angle, or angles. Hence, the wacks in the head with hot brass.

I think it reasonable to assume, that at least for a moment, the extractor and the ejector are, both, in contact with the cartridge case at the same time. It's this formerly correct juxtaposition of components and timing that something (or things) about these new Glocks is sporadically disturbing? If I worked for Glock (Which would never happen because I don't have an appropriate psychological profile for the job.) I would take a long hard look at the following items:

(1) The fit and adjustment of the extractor claw against the case rim. Why? Because I'm sure it's incorrect. The present claw profile appears to be too large, too loose, and - from what I'm reading here - apparently canted at an undesirable angle.

(2) At the very least I'd go back to the use of a polymerized oil finish. My suspicion is that the components-in-question impinge upon each other when they move; and I'm wondering whether or not, 'polymer frame harmonics' might, also, be involved?

(3) Personally, I do not believe a new and different ejector would be needed IF the extractor claw(s) hadn't been changed to a: bigger, clunkier, and more poorly fitting design. In my opinion, high speed photographs would, also, be a big help - Especially if a comparison between an older, correctly operating, Glock; and one of the new, 'fubar models' were to be made.

Neither do I think just one thing is responsible for these extraction/ejection anomalies. I imagine some sort of synergy between several different parts is actually taking place. Wow! You're right, Zertek; this IS nuts! This situation reminds me of the numerous, and highly sporadic, failures to return-to-battery that my brand new 3rd generation G-21's experienced before the Portland Police Bureau and the Georgia State Patrol forced Smyrna to finally, 'upgrade' the old #4256 trigger bars.

Good luck! (And stay away for those, 'factory reconditioned' and other used Glocks you might come across at the next gun show.)

ADDED: diamondd2, what are you saying - That the recoil guide rods and springs might, also, be involved? Hmmmm ........

voyager4520
03-11-2012, 16:48
I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???
That's correct, when the LWD extractors were first released, the 9mm and .40 versions were mixed up with each other, so people who ordered one actually got the other. People who saw the LWD extractor fix the ejection problem in their 9mm Glocks were actually using .40 extractors.

LoneWolf corrected that error, and since then everyone who's used an actual LWD 9mm extractor in a 9mm Glock that had the ejection problem saw their ejection become worse. LoneWolf-brand extractors which have a "3" are actually 9mm extractors, and the ones with "4" are actually .40 extractors.

I've read posts from quite a few people who intentionally used factory .40 extractors and spring loaded bearings in their 9mm Glocks that had the ejection problem, and in every case that I've read it fixed the ejection problem.

What fixed the ejection problem in my Gen3 G27 was to install the 28926 ejector and replace the extractor. The new extractor itself didn't show very much improvement at all, the 28926 ejector finally fixed the problem.

Some people have installed the new ejector and it either didn't fix the ejection problem or it made ejection worse, in most of those cases they then replaced the extractor and the gun started ejecting normally, which sounds to me like even with the new ejector, if the extractor doesn't move freely enough the gun will still eject erratically.

Arc Angel
03-12-2012, 02:55
That's correct, when the LWD extractors were first released, the 9mm and .40 versions were mixed up with each other, so people who ordered one actually got the other. People who saw the LWD extractor fix the ejection problem in their 9mm Glocks were actually using .40 extractors.

LoneWolf corrected that error, and since then everyone who's used an actual LWD 9mm extractor in a 9mm Glock that had the ejection problem saw their ejection become worse. LoneWolf-brand extractors which have a "3" are actually 9mm extractors, and the ones with "4" are actually .40 extractors.

I've read posts from quite a few people who intentionally used factory .40 extractors and spring loaded bearings in their 9mm Glocks that had the ejection problem, and in every case that I've read it fixed the ejection problem.

What fixed the ejection problem in my Gen3 G27 was to install the 28926 ejector and replace the extractor. The new extractor itself didn't show very much improvement at all, the 28926 ejector finally fixed the problem.

Some people have installed the new ejector and it either didn't fix the ejection problem or it made ejection worse, in most of those cases they then replaced the extractor and the gun started ejecting normally, which sounds to me like even with the new ejector, if the extractor doesn't move freely enough the gun will still eject erratically.

The above is useful information! I checked; the G-19 extractor I ordered from LWD has a VERY faint, '3' on it. Should I ever begin to have problems I'll remember these remarks about the 40 caliber extractors and SLB's. (Verifies part of what I've suspected might be causing this problem, too; but, until I read this, I didn't think the SLB is, also, involved.)

Good post, thanks!

Ridder
03-13-2012, 09:37
I received the LWD 9mm LCI extractor today.
It has a "3" on it and does not have a dip like the stock-Glock extractor (which also has a "3" on it).

Didn't go to the range yet, but used dummy rounds (used cases with bullet on it...no powder) to see if there was any difference when racking the slide.
The Glock extractor falls out very easely now (after some 2500 rounds....at first you had to pull it out) and ejection looks better with the Glock extractor compared with the LWD.
With the LWD it ejects....but not very convincing.
The Glock extr. had a horizontal flight of 3-4 feet and with the LWD it's not even 1 foot.
Of course that doesn't say anything, first have to try it with live rounds.

I have a White Sound Defense HRED plunger, a SS guide rod with 15# ISMI spring and a modified 336 ejector.

Made in Austria
03-13-2012, 09:50
I received the LWD 9mm LCI extractor today.
It has a "3" on it and does not have a dip like the stock-Glock extractor (which also has a "3" on it).

Didn't go to the range yet, but used dummy rounds (used cases with bullet on it...no powder) to see if there was any difference when racking the slide.
The Glock extractor falls out very easely now (after some 2500 rounds....at first you had to pull it out) and ejection looks better with the Glock extractor compared with the LWD.
With the LWD it ejects....but not very convincing.
The Glock extr. had a horizontal flight of 3-4 feet and with the LWD it's not even 1 foot.
Of course that doesn't say anything, first have to try it with live rounds.

I have a White Sound Defense HRED plunger, a SS guide rod with 15# ISMI spring and a modified 336 ejector.

Was a magazine inserted while ejecting by hand? If so, make sure the magazine is loaded with at least one round when you eject a round by hand, because the ejection pattern differs from a loaded mag, from a partially loaded, and an empty mag.

Glock handguns don't eject at all by hand racking the slide with no magazine inserted not even with live fire. The spring tension of the mag is also needed for the ejection process.

Good luck with the LWD extractor!!

dusty_dragon
03-13-2012, 10:07
what exactly did you modify on your "336" ejector, ridder?

kodiakpb
03-13-2012, 10:19
Glock handguns don't eject at all by hand racking the slide with no magazine inserted not even with live fire. The spring tension of the mag is also needed for the ejection process.

Good luck with the LWD extractor!!

What do you mean by "at all"? My 26 and 19 both eject that way enough for me to catch the round in the air with no mag.

Made in Austria
03-13-2012, 10:26
What do you mean by "at all"? My 26 and 19 both eject that way enough for me to catch the round in the air with no mag.

None of my 19's and 23's eject the rounds out of the ejection port with no mag. They either fall down the mag well or get stuck in between the slide and the barrel.

kodiakpb
03-13-2012, 10:33
None of my 19's and 23's eject the rounds out of the ejection port with no mag. They either fall down the mag well or get stuck in between the slide and the barrel.

Really? that's odd. Are you sharply pulling the slide back or just slowly cycling it? When I unload mine I turn it to the side and rack it back and can catch the round.

Made in Austria
03-13-2012, 10:43
Really? that's odd. Are you sharply pulling the slide back or just slowly cycling it? When I unload mine I turn it to the side and rack it back and can catch the round.

I see, you turn your gun to the side when you clear the chamber, that's the proper way to do it. I hold my gun like I would shoot it when I clear the chamber, that's why they fall down the mag well, or get stuck in the gun in very rare cases. It's a bad habit of mine to hold the gun straight while clearing the chamber.

dusty_dragon
03-13-2012, 11:40
@kodiakpb:
do your turn your gun to the left or to the right side, while racking/unloading?

kodiakpb
03-13-2012, 11:45
Left so I can observe the chamber

Made in Austria
03-13-2012, 11:45
deleted

dusty_dragon
03-13-2012, 11:51
roger that, kodiakpb

wolfpack3
03-14-2012, 08:18
Test with wwb 9 115 grain. ejects were in the 4to5 clock area and thrown out 3 or 4 feet. They also did some work on the trigger and it is great. By no means a single action break, but real nice reset and lighter break with what seems to me shorter take up.

Ridder
03-14-2012, 08:48
I fired 100 rounds last night: 50 reloads (124gr copperplated RN, with 5,3gr N340) and 50 WWB.

All rounds fired without a problem, but the ejection with the LWD was weak and 50% @5 o'clock to 6 o'clock (my face...)

I put the stock extractor back in and cases were thrown further and a couple @ 5-6 o'clock....maybe 10%.

So.....the stock MIM extractor with the 3 on it is definitely better.

@dusty_dragon: I modified the ejector according to a posting on this forum....dunno from whom it was.
Just took off some metal with a Dremel: now the first point of impact is a little more down and to the right, when watched from the top.

Before I modified the ejector the cases were dented and scratched, but that's no longer the case (!).

dusty_dragon
03-14-2012, 09:04
thanks for the info, ridder

English
03-15-2012, 05:15
None of my 19's and 23's eject the rounds out of the ejection port with no mag. They either fall down the mag well or get stuck in between the slide and the barrel.

That is just evidence that their extractors are not gripping the case rim but just hooking over it. I believe that is the basis of the problems dicussed in this thread.

English

Wizz
03-15-2012, 09:31
What is amazing is that Glock is not updating the ejector on current production Gen 3 pistols even though they are using those horrible MIM extractors.

Someone high up at Glock is getting pretty greedy judging by all the quality/cost cuts they are making. Did Ruger buy Glock?

dusty_dragon
03-15-2012, 10:32
on the gen. 3 most glocks work just fine with the "336" ejector, so i assume glock sees no need to change it.

sooner or later they will change al the 9mm ejectors to the "30274" just making the production process and spare parts list smaller and easier.

the "336" seems to have more probs in the gen. 4 gloks and very few in the gen. 3 glocks, so i guess they use up all remaining "336s" in the current production run of the gen. 3 models.

Made in Austria
03-15-2012, 11:01
That is just evidence that their extractors are not gripping the case rim but just hooking over it. I believe that is the basis of the problems dicussed in this thread.

English

I think it's normal for a "tilt barrel" gun with no magazine in it and/if you hold it straight like you would shoot it when clearing the chamber. I am sure a 1911 will eject just fine with no mag in it, even if you hold it like I do.

dusty_dragon
03-15-2012, 16:40
can anyone tell me how to differ a newer "MiM"-extractor from an older "non-MiM" one?

by number, by surface, by form?

just in case i'll see some spare parts in a local gunstore etc. i need advice to get a fast recognition pattern to differ both variants

kodiakpb
03-15-2012, 17:16
I think it's normal for a "tilt barrel" gun with no magazine in it and/if you hold it straight like you would shoot it when clearing the chamber. I am sure a 1911 will eject just fine with no mag in it, even if you hold it like I do.

After reading about your issue, I just unloaded my 26 by holding it straight and it threw the round up and out between 3-4 o'clock with no mag. Let me know if you want a pic of how an empty case sits in the extractor.

novasquid
03-15-2012, 17:24
my g19 also ejects to the 3-4 o'clock without a magazine.

and to stay on topic... the polish and slight filing of the shoulder didn't fix my erratic ejection. i have a glock .40 extractor on the way to try, since it's been reported to fix the problem on a g19.

dusty_dragon
03-15-2012, 17:45
let us know if it worked with the .40 extractor

you could also try a .40 ejector, or both together

G23Gen4TX
03-15-2012, 18:13
let us know if it worked with the .40 extractor

you could also try a .40 ejector, or both together

I tried a .40 extractor in my Gen4 G17. Most ammo was fine but Seller & Belliot would not load because the rim of the case was thicker than most ammo.

novasquid
03-15-2012, 18:17
was it a glock or lwd .40 extractor?

dusty_dragon
03-15-2012, 18:40
@novasquid:
which generation is your G19?

did you already try the new ejector 30274?

or an older non-LCI-extractor + SLB (if it's a gen.3 G19)

novasquid
03-15-2012, 18:53
i have a gen4 g19 with the newest RSA and ejector.

dusty_dragon
03-15-2012, 18:55
okay, so forget about what i said, would only work on a gen.3, sorry

gunner76
03-15-2012, 19:03
I polished my extractor in my Gen4 G19 with all the updated parts the other day and tried the gun out. With just the top and bottoms polished until it was pretty shiny the ejection was alittle better but I was still getting a few cases to the head. So then I started taking some off the step, it took a couple of tries and I think I got it right now. I only had 5rds left after making the second adjustment to the step, but all 5 casings ejected to the right and made a high arc out of the gun and landed in a fairly nice pile.

Also, I was wondering how will the extractor act if you remove too much material? I have enough taken off the top/bottom so that the extractor falls out under it's own weight. I only took enough off the step to remove the blueing and maybe a touch more.

dusty_dragon
03-16-2012, 03:47
so the canting of the "oversized" extractor in it's channel in the slide must really be a problem of the newer MiM-extractors.

on my G17 / G19 both gen. 3, the extractors fall out by themselves while disassembling, no canting, pushing, forcing.

rootpass
03-16-2012, 04:22
I have not heard anything about how the spent brass looks. On my late model G19 test fire date 10/10/11, with the stock recoil spring, my fired brass shows a mark on the rim at 3 o'clock From the extractor and then a small dent about 4-5 o'clock from what appears to be hitting the bottom of the ejection port. There are also brass marks left on hood of the slide. SS recoil spring eleminated this. I have the 336 ejector and non updated recoil spring. This was with Winchester WWB. FWIW

newbs
03-16-2012, 06:57
I received the LWD 9mm LCI extractor today.
It has a "3" on it and does not have a dip like the stock-Glock extractor (which also has a "3" on it).


Hold up... Your original Glock extractor has a "3" on it? Is that on a Gen 4 G19? Mine has a "2" on it. Do I have the wrong extractor? It sure doesn't seem to grip the lip of the casing very well...

voyager4520
03-16-2012, 07:01
According to Glock, the numbers on the newest extractors relate to which mold cavity they were formed in, not different designs of extractors.

MNBud
03-16-2012, 07:48
I polished my extractor in my Gen4 G19 with all the updated parts the other day and tried the gun out. With just the top and bottoms polished until it was pretty shiny the ejection was alittle better but I was still getting a few cases to the head. So then I started taking some off the step, it took a couple of tries and I think I got it right now. I only had 5rds left after making the second adjustment to the step, but all 5 casings ejected to the right and made a high arc out of the gun and landed in a fairly nice pile.

Also, I was wondering how will the extractor act if you remove too much material? I have enough taken off the top/bottom so that the extractor falls out under it's own weight. I only took enough off the step to remove the blueing and maybe a touch more.

I am very confused why people are removing material from this step, the only thing that step does is locate the position of the extractor when there is NO round in the chamber. Once there is a round under the extractor this step is OUT of the process.I believe that too much messing with this step people are going to have issues with the extractor being in the correct location while CHAMBERING a round.

newbs
03-16-2012, 08:07
According to Glock, the numbers on the newest extractors relate to which mold cavity they were formed in, not different designs of extractors.

Doh! I knew that. :)

Thanks!

Sent with Outdoor Hub mobile on iPhone

novasquid
03-16-2012, 09:47
i installed the glock .40 extractor into my gen4 g19 9mm about a half hour ago. i loaded 10 speer lawman cartridges to see how it would eject. first cartridge got stuck on the extractor, oops not a good sign! so i took an arkansas stone to the claw and filed the top part of it thinking it would help slide onto the cartridge case. it worked. i loaded about 4 magazines worth of speer lawman and snap caps, and they all ejected to the 4 o'clock consistently, almost within a 1" landing zone.

i'm planning to take it to the range saturday morning and i'll report back how it goes, but so far it looks like the .40 extractor is a viable fix for the g19.

edit: it was actually the top part of the claw that was too tight. i initially thought it was the lower part of the claw that i filed down, but it was the top part of it.

kodiakpb
03-16-2012, 11:47
Glad to hear your not limp wristing anymore.....I'M JOKING, just a joke don't shoot me. :) Glad things are looking up.

Arc Angel
03-16-2012, 12:02
I am very confused why people are removing material from this step, the only thing that step does is locate the position of the extractor when there is NO round in the chamber. Once there is a round under the extractor this step is OUT of the process.I believe that too much messing with this step people are going to have issues with the extractor being in the correct location while CHAMBERING a round.

One other thing in addition to what you've already written: The size of the extractor's shoulder also determines how much, 'bite' the extractor claw takes on a cartridge rim.

If a small amount of material is removed from this shoulder then cartridge cases are going to be more positively grabbed by the inward-directed claw.

Where the extractor claw rests when there is no cartridge in the chamber is, consequently, irrelevant.

dusty_dragon
03-16-2012, 12:27
can you please post a pic with a red-encircled "shoulder" part that you mean

ak103k
03-16-2012, 13:28
If a small amount of material is removed from this shoulder then cartridge cases are going to be more positively grabbed by the inward-directed claw.

Where the extractor claw rests when there is no cartridge in the chamber is, consequently, irrelevant.
I disagree. When there is a case under the extractor, that shoulder contacts nothing, so there is nothing to retard its inward travel. As MNBud stated, it only comes in contact with the slide when there is no case present.

You can remove the whole shoulder, and it wont have any more inward travel than a factory extractor if a case is present. The more you remove, the more likely youre going to have a feeding issue due to the extractor being improperly positioned in the slide, which is what I believe MNBud was getting at.

Noponer
03-16-2012, 15:56
I disagree. When there is a case under the extractor, that shoulder contacts nothing, so there is nothing to retard its inward travel. As MNBud stated, it only comes in contact with the slide when there is no case present.

You can remove the whole shoulder, and it wont have any more inward travel than a factory extractor if a case is present. The more you remove, the more likely youre going to have a feeding issue due to the extractor being improperly positioned in the slide, which is what I believe MNBud was getting at.

Exactly. Well-stated.

Removing material from that shoulder will not tighten the grip on the case at all & may cause problems with the next round feeding up from the mag... not to mention someone trying to drop the slide on a round in the chamber (never a good idea, of course).

gunner76
03-16-2012, 15:59
can you please post a pic with a red-encircled "shoulder" part that you mean

there is a picture on the first or second page that shows the shoulder.

dusty_dragon
03-16-2012, 16:33
@guner76:
you mean page #1 post #23 picture #1, which is commonly refered in this thread as "the step", right?

bentbiker
03-16-2012, 17:28
http://i43.tinypic.com/66w9xw.jpg

dusty_dragon
03-16-2012, 17:32
thanks bentbiker, perfect service, as always *thumbs up*

that was exactly the part i was thinking about, but it is always refered to as "the step" in this board not as " the shoulder", right?

novasquid
03-17-2012, 08:23
today was my 3rd hour long session with my gen4 g19 and i shot 405 rounds of speer lawman 124gr. today was the first time with the glock .40sw extractor, and not a single erratic ejection throughout the entire hour. the previous 1st and 2nd hour long sessions with the g19 oem extractor caused erratic ejections about half hour into each session, but today it was all flawless. thanks to voyager4520 for mentioning the .40 extractor in several previous threads, otherwise i probably would've never picked up on it.

if the polishing doesn't work for you as it didn't for me, try the .40 extractor.

Arc Angel
03-17-2012, 14:41
Exactly. Well-stated.

Removing material from that shoulder will not tighten the grip on the case at all & may cause problems with the next round feeding up from the mag... not to mention someone trying to drop the slide on a round in the chamber (never a good idea, of course).

:upeyes: Are ya sure!

(Remember, we're not talking about a properly working extractor; nor are we talking about an extractor that is in motion.) ;)

ak103k
03-17-2012, 15:12
If the shoulder was out of spec, and somehow contacting anything with a round under extractor, then the LCI would not fit flush with the slide on an empty chamber, and would protrude away from the face of the slide.

If you remove material at that point, then it will also not fit flush, but now in the negative, and would be to far inboard towards the breech face, and possibly interfering with the rounds coming up from the mag.

As far as it being in motion, from hand cycling a bunch of live rounds in a number of my Glocks, the extractors LCI still protrudes from the face of the slide all the way to ejection, and never drops to flush with a round under it. If it sits flush when empty, how can it be contacting anything if the case holds it away while there?

ken grant
03-17-2012, 15:13
My 19 had a dip extractor and crazy ejection. I replaced the extractor with a non-dip and my ejection got worse.

I then polished the non-dip and it even got more crazy.

I then polished the dip that came in the 19 and the ejection was even worse than it was to start with before I did anything.

All polishing was only done on the top and bottom of the extractor.
Nothing was done on the stem or step.

voyager4520
03-17-2012, 15:30
today was my 3rd hour long session with my gen4 g19 and i shot 405 rounds of speer lawman 124gr. today was the first time with the glock .40sw extractor, and not a single erratic ejection throughout the entire hour. ...
if the polishing doesn't work for you as it didn't for me, try the .40 extractor.
Congrats!

AustinTx
03-17-2012, 16:03
"Fixing" your gun, by installing an extractor made for the next larger caliber, just doesn't seen too smart, to me.

If you are having ammo feeding problems, just use the next larger sized magazine? I'm sure that I have misunderstood something, there. The whole thing is sorta abstract, I reckon.:snoopy: