My Extractor Solution For Now (with pics) [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : My Extractor Solution For Now (with pics)


dhgeyer
09-26-2012, 08:05
I still want the Apex when I can get one, just to see for myself if they are onto something or not.

In the meantime I have a setup that works much better than the original extractor setup that came with my 2012 tested Glock 19 Gen 4. My gun has all the latest parts. Even with the original, very weak, extractor setup it did not jam in the hundred or so rounds I put through it before starting my experiments. I did get a lot of Brass to the head and otherwise weak and erratic ejection.

My solution has not eliminated erratic ejection completely, but I haven't had any hit me lately, and they are more or less going in the same direction.

Here's what I did. First I ordered and installed the Lone Wolf Distributers (LWD) extractor, extractor spring, and spring loaded bearing (SLB). That helped, but I was not there yet.

Next I started playing with the SLB, making my own on the lathe. I have some nails that, by coincidence, are exactly the right diameter. My goal in doing this was twofold. First, by making the head of the SLB a bit longer, I could tension the spring a bit more. Second, I noticed that the extractor depressor plunger tip at the rear was beating up the tip of the plastic SLB even after a few rounds.

Now, the overall length of the SLB is important. As the extractor moves out, compressing the extractor spring, the pointed tip of the extractor plunger hits the SLB, limiting the travel of the extractor.

The LWD SLB is .480 in length. The Glock SLB is a bit longer, but cupped at the end to mate with the plunger tip. I have no way to measure the exact effective length. Problem with the Glock setup is that the SLB is stepped down, and the SLB's are not exactly straight. So the plunger tip was beating up the edge of the cupped end rather than mating as it was designed to do.

My solution, arrived at after some experimentation, is a steel SLB, just short enough in total length to allow the extractor to chamber a round, and not stepped, so that the plunger tip hits it squarely in the middle. The maximum length I can make my SLB is .477. Note the end of mine is slightly rounded, just enough to make sure it will not hang up on the spring. Note also the slightly longer "head", causing just a bit more spring compression. Shown with LWD SLB for comparison.

http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/springloadedbearings.jpg

The second photo shows the new assembly, with a White Sound Defense 20% extra power extractor spring, my last improvement. Note the distance between the tip (which you can't actually see) of the plunger on the left and the SLB on the right. After pressing this assembly into the slide, pre-compressing the spring, there is just enough room for the plunger to move back sufficiently to allow the extractor to move enough to chamber a round.

http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/springloadedbearing02.jpg

This setup is the best I can do at the moment, I think. The ejection is still not as good as my M&P or my Kahr or my CZ85 Combat. But I'm not getting hit, and I can find all my brass.

I am sure some will say: "Why go to all that trouble if the gun wasn't jamming in the first place?". Answer: to me it is no bother. It is play. And it is how I learn things about how things work, or sometimes don't work so well.

ArrowJ
09-26-2012, 08:48
I have to say I am really questioning my decision to buy a Glock next year. A gun with enough extractor problems to pop a Google search result to the top of the list seems problematic as a tool for defending one's life. My problem is that the Gen 4 Glocks are the first ones that feel comfortable in my hand so buying an older more reliable Glock is not something I am interested in. Frustrating. Surely Glock will address this issue eventually? I wonder if the company will retain its closed mouth obtuse "Glocks never fail" policy when Gaston is no longer around?

JBS
09-26-2012, 09:07
I still want the Apex when I can get one, just to see for myself if they are onto something or not.

In the meantime I have a setup that works much better than the original extractor setup that came with my 2012 tested Glock 19 Gen 4. My gun has all the latest parts. Even with the original, very weak, extractor setup it did not jam in the hundred or so rounds I put through it before starting my experiments. I did get a lot of Brass to the head and otherwise weak and erratic ejection.

My solution has not eliminated erratic ejection completely, but I haven't had any hit me lately, and they are more or less going in the same direction.

Here's what I did. First I ordered and installed the Lone Wolf Distributers (LWD) extractor, extractor spring, and spring loaded bearing (SLB). That helped, but I was not there yet.

Next I started playing with the SLB, making my own on the lathe. I have some nails that, by coincidence, are exactly the right diameter. My goal in doing this was twofold. First, by making the head of the SLB a bit longer, I could tension the spring a bit more. Second, I noticed that the ejector plunger tip at the rear was beating up the tip of the plastic SLB even after a few rounds.

Now, the overall length of the SLB is important. As the extractor moves out, compressing the extractor spring, the pointed tip of the extractor plunger hits the SLB, limiting the travel of the extractor.

The LWD SLB is .480 in length. The Glock SLB is a bit longer, but cupped at the end to mate with the plunger tip. I have no way to measure the exact effective length. Problem with the Glock setup is that the SLB is stepped down, and the SLB's are not exactly straight. So the plunger tip was beating up the edge of the cupped end rather than mating as it was designed to do.

My solution, arrived at after some experimentation, is a steel SLB, just short enough in total length to allow the extractor to chamber a round, and not stepped, so that the plunger tip hits it squarely in the middle. The maximum length I can make my SLB is .477. Note the end of mine is slightly rounded, just enough to make sure it will not hang up on the spring. Note also the slightly longer "head", causing just a bit more spring compression. Shown with LWD SLB for comparison.

http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/springloadedbearings.jpg

The second photo shows the new assembly, with a White Sound Defense 20% extra power extractor spring, my last improvement. Note the distance between the tip (which you can't actually see) of the plunger on the left and the SLB on the right. After pressing this assembly into the slide, pre-compressing the spring, there is just enough room for the plunger to move back sufficiently to allow the extractor to move enough to chamber a round.

http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/springloadedbearing02.jpg

This setup is the best I can do at the moment, I think. The ejection is still not as good as my M&P or my Kahr or my CZ85 Combat. But I'm not getting hit, and I can find all my brass.

I am sure some will say: "Why go to all that trouble if the gun wasn't jamming in the first place?". Answer: to me it is no bother. It is play. And it is how I learn things about how things work, or sometimes don't work so well.

Dhgeyer, did you notice the other end of the original depressor plunger and how it shows signs of deformation on the cylindrical stepped up portion? Right where it exits the slide to make contact with the extractor. I too am about to fire up the lathe and turn a new plunger ( 414 Stainless ). I plan to extend the length of this area to twice its length. I think by doing this it will eliminate the binding and may allow the extractor to function without chattering.

dhgeyer
09-26-2012, 11:54
Dhgeyer, did you notice the other end of the original depressor plunger and how it shows signs of deformation on the cylindrical stepped up portion? Right where it exits the slide to make contact with the extractor. I too am about to fire up the lathe and turn a new plunger ( 414 Stainless ). I plan to extend the length of this area to twice its length. I think by doing this it will eliminate the binding and may allow the extractor to function without chattering.

I never looked for that. I just took it apart again and looked at it under a magnifying glass. I don't see any deformation. I do notice that there seems to be a bit of a raised ring about two thirds of the way back on the front larger diameter portion that you mention, and that ring is shiny, indicating that that is where the wear is taking place. I also noticed that with the original extractor parts there was some binding in the extractor movement. It went away as soon as I replaced the extractor with the LWD one. Same plunger.

Have you seen the White Sounds Defense extractor tensioning setup? I just bought the extra power spring, but they have a three piece set that replaces the plunger, spring, and spring loaded bearing. Interesting setup. They turn everything around. The long piece is at the rear, and the short piece at the front. They make some claims about this making the inertia of the part help (as opposed to hinder) the extractor's tension. I didn't buy the logic or the kit, just the stronger spring. But they may be right, who knows? Of course if you do this the shorter piece (now in front) will need to be longer than the Glock or LWD SLB, and the longer piece correspondingly shorter.

If you're chucking some stock up in the lathe anyway, you might want to experiment with their way of doing it instead of the Glock way. I've been thinking of trying it just for G&S.

Also, either way you make your plunger, why stop at making the fatter part longer? Why not try it with full diameter the whole length of the piece? If that doesn't work, you can always turn the middle down later.

Whatever you decide to do, I'd be interested in your results.

JBS
09-26-2012, 12:29
Have been installing the WSD springs on customers pistols for a while, not sure I agree with their logic on reversed rod either. I thought about full size full length,,, but because the rod must move I think I will relieve most of the rod to cut down on drag. May leave a hub (support point) in the center to prevent flex like that found on the 10mm and .45 rods. In regards to the area I am talking about I have founded some rods that where so chewed up that all the plating was gone and a ring had been formed in the rod.

dhgeyer
09-26-2012, 12:45
I'll keep an eye out for that. If I have to make a replacement, even out of a nail, I can harden it with Kasenit, and once hardened with that stuff, it won't wear out. Wear out the slide first!

JBS
09-26-2012, 12:57
Correct but remember that the substrate metal on a part like that can/will displace and you end up with a cracked surface over a dent or groove. I would suggest temper harden the part all the way though.

dhgeyer
09-26-2012, 13:51
Correct but remember that the substrate metal on a part like that can/will displace and you end up with a cracked surface over a dent or groove. I would suggest temper harden the part all the way though.

Not enough carbon in a nail to heat treat properly. I've hardened an awful lot of gun parts with Kasenit in the last 50 years and never cracked one or had any trouble with it. I'll try that first, if I ever need to make that part at all. :cool:

Paul53
09-27-2012, 09:47
Nice machine work! My Gen 4 19 is flawless, but I feel for those who have problems. The answer to the problem has been so allusive I'm guessing that there is more than one problem. Seems like those who have the know how to make several changes get the best results.

dhgeyer
09-27-2012, 11:16
Nice machine work! My Gen 4 19 is flawless, but I feel for those who have problems. The answer to the problem has been so allusive I'm guessing that there is more than one problem. Seems like those who have the know how to make several changes get the best results.

Thank you! I have fun. My little secret is that what I have is a wood lathe, so all this is done with files, diamond hones, and abrasives. Somehow I manage. Been at it for a long long time.

You are lucky to have a good Gen 4 with no problems. Mine is close to 600 rounds and no outright jams yet. I would like to get the ejection as consistent as my other 9mm pistols, but I think that is a pipe dream.

dhgeyer
09-27-2012, 11:37
Well, on closer examination of my extractor depressor plunger (henceforth called EDP) I discovered that JBS was right after all. What I thought was a ring is actually wear (scoring). The slide is digging into the front end of the EDP. And this is after only 500 rounds! No wonder people are experiencing trouble a few thousand in: parts are wearing out. I swear, Glock has really gone downhill.

Anyway, I took the plunge (no pun intended) and made myself an EDP out of a nail. Filed it, stoned it, honed it, and smoothed it on my wood lathe. Then polished it on the buffing wheel. Then hardened the Hell out of it with Kasenit. Then had to buff it out again. File won't touch it. Probably won't wear out. I only hardened the contact surfaces at the front and back.

I used JBS's idea of lengthening the wider portion at the front, and at the back as well. Also, I did not make a point at the back of the part the spring slips onto, but left it blunt. It is butting up against the blunt end of my spring loaded bearing (SLB), so I saw not reason to sharpen the end. I did make sure that the overall length is within a thousandth of the original part.

Took it out and shot a box through it. Didn't make any difference as far as ejection goes. Probably last longer though.

I fault Glock for not taking the sharp edge off the front of the hole these parts fit into. There's no reason the EDP should be getting beaten up like this.

The picture shows the original part and my homemade job. You can see the scoring starting on the front of the Glock part. Time will tell if mine does any better, but I can make one in an hour if I need to. I'm also going to add a touch of grease at the front from now on. Might help. I'll keep it out of the extractor itself of course.

http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/plunger01.jpg

JBS
09-27-2012, 12:35
Excellent work, hummm what could you do with a 40” Gearhead? :supergrin:
So you did not notice any difference at all in ejection patterns?

dhgeyer
09-27-2012, 12:51
Excellent work, hummm what could you do with a 40” Gearhead? :supergrin:
So you did not notice any difference at all in ejection patterns?

Thank you. From a fellow creator I really appreciate that. When I was 13 my father brought home (had delivered of course) an excellent South Bend toolroom lathe. He taught me how to use it. Shortly thereafter I made my first muzzle loading zip gun from scratch. I took a machine shop course years later. I'd love to have any kind of metal lathe, but with the basement pretty much full of woodworking equipment there isn't any more room for one.

I did not notice any improvement in ejection pattern. But with all the other aftermarket/homemade parts in the system it's not all that bad anymore. I could get all scientific and start mixing different combinations to see what is weak and what works. Maybe sometime, not right away.

I am convinced that the real problem is that 17 degree slant in the extractor claw. Think about it. The extractor is only under maximum tension when the barrel is all the way up and the slide is in battery. Once you link down, because of that angle, the extractor has moved in a little and is not under full tension. And that is the point where extraction/ejection happens, not when the barrel is up. And the rather weak spring setup doesn't help. I think they made a fundamental mistake angling the extractor claw like that. It is not needed for the LCI extractor concept. My Kahr has an LCI extractor and the claw is vertical. And the Kahr passes the 1911 test whereas the Glock does not.

What I really wonder is if the Apex folks have corrected that blunder. Anyone take a picture of the front of one showing the claw angle?

JBS
09-27-2012, 13:14
On the attached thread I listed a change I made to the extractor in one of my Glocks that was already ejecting just fine. It was just an experiment. It did change the ejection pattern and made it much more consistent. As the G22 I used was one of my Duty weapons I removed the modified part and put a stock extractor back in. I attached a hand drawing of the change I made if you want to give it a try with your adjusted EDP. I have also wanted to do another experiment if I ever get a customer to come into my shop with a 9mm that has the “bad ejection” problem and that is to see if the poor ejection stays the same when the ejector is removed from the trigger housing. My thinking is that on some of these pistols for whatever reason the next round in the magazine is causing the empty to be ejected before it even gets to the face of the ejector and that is what is causing the problem.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1427345&highlight=ejector+tune

dhgeyer
09-27-2012, 15:32
JBS: I looked at your drawings, and checked samples of all of the brands of cases I shoot/reload. None of them displayed the condition that you corrected. The Lone Wolf Distributers extractor nose looks more like your second drawing than your first. I wouldn't want to take any more metal off of it.

Your theory about cases ejecting before even hitting the ejector is quite plausible. Wouldn't that be a symptom of the extractor being weak and dropping the case? I already know from trying the "1911" test that the extractor will not hold the case on its own under recoil. Take the mag out and the cases just fall out the mag well. So they need the support of either the next case in the mag or the mag follower holding them in the extractor to make it back to the ejector. Either way, as I see it, the problem is the weak/poorly designed extractor not being able to hold onto the case.

molar
10-07-2012, 07:41
On the attached thread I listed a change I made to the extractor in one of my Glocks that was already ejecting just fine. It was just an experiment. It did change the ejection pattern and made it much more consistent. As the G22 I used was one of my Duty weapons I removed the modified part and put a stock extractor back in. I attached a hand drawing of the change I made if you want to give it a try with your adjusted EDP. I have also wanted to do another experiment if I ever get a customer to come into my shop with a 9mm that has the “bad ejection” problem and that is to see if the poor ejection stays the same when the ejector is removed from the trigger housing. My thinking is that on some of these pistols for whatever reason the next round in the magazine is causing the empty to be ejected before it even gets to the face of the ejector and that is what is causing the problem.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1427345&highlight=ejector+tune

I think you are on to something. I have a gen 3 19 that has erratic ejection. The 30274 ejector helped, but ejection is still really weak.

I had my gen 2.5 26 at the range last friday. With the 10 round 26 mags, ejection was perfect with all brass landing in a nice little pile. The 26 mags had #1 and 4 followers. I tried some newer 15 round 19 mags in it and it started displaying erratic ejection. I fired several mags through it and on each, the last round ejected at 12 o'clock a few feet in front of the gun. It seemed to me that it is possible that the follower started the ejection process before the case hit the ejector and when the slide started to move forward, the breechface hit the case sending it in the 12 o'clock direction. The 19 mags have the newest #6 gen 4 followers. When inserted into the frame of the 26, the #6 followers sit much higher in relation to the feedramp than the #1 and 4 followers. It is interesting that erratic ejection followed the 19 mag.

Also, when I detail stripped the 19, I noticed the walls of the extractor depressor plunger was chewed up. There were alot of debris in the channel for a gun that has only 500 rounds on it. I wonder if this has anything to do with the reason some folks don't start having problems until they hit a higher round count? If the extractor depressor channel were cut too small or the body of the plunger was slighly too large, what effect would the increased friction on the depressor plunger have on extraction and ejection? Would it affect slide velocity? Would it prevent the extractor from rotating freely?

dhgeyer
10-07-2012, 08:39
I had my gen 2.5 26 at the range last friday. With the 10 round 26 mags, ejection was perfect with all brass landing in a nice little pile. The 26 mags had #1 and 4 followers. I tried some newer 15 round 19 mags in it and it started displaying erratic ejection. I fired several mags through it and on each, the last round ejected at 12 o'clock a few feet in front of the gun. It seemed to me that it is possible that the follower started the ejection process before the case hit the ejector and when the slide started to move forward, the breechface hit the case sending it in the 12 o'clock direction. The 19 mags have the newest #6 gen 4 followers. When inserted into the frame of the 26, the #6 followers sit much higher in relation to the feedramp than the #1 and 4 followers. It is interesting that erratic ejection followed the 19 mag.

Also, when I detail stripped the 19, I noticed the walls of the extractor depressor plunger was chewed up. There were alot of debris in the channel for a gun that has only 500 rounds on it. I wonder if this has anything to do with the reason some folks don't start having problems until they hit a higher round count? If the extractor depressor channel were cut too small or the body of the plunger was slighly too large, what effect would the increased friction on the depressor plunger have on extraction and ejection? Would it affect slide velocity? Would it prevent the extractor from rotating freely?

1. Have you ever chambered a round and then taken the mag out and noticed that the next round has been moved forward a bit? Seems to happen most of the time. And not by the same amount. Since it's pretty well established that Gen 4 9mm Glock ejection needs the support of the next round (the extractor cannot hold the round by itself), if the position of the next round is not consistent, it is logical that ejection would be inconsistent. An interesting test might be to push every next round in the mag back all the way before firing each shot for a mag or two.

2. Bad scoring on the end of the EDP where it enters the channel at the front would very likely cause binding of the extractor function, not the extractor itself. The tensioning of the extractor would be spotty.

I think the wear on the end of the EDP isn't so much a function of too tight of a fit as a sharp edge on the front of the channel. My factory EDP has plenty of play in the channel. Looking down the channel from the rear, it is quite roughly drilled. The slide must be harder material than the EDP, so if the end of the channel is sharp, that would do it. I made a half attempt to break that edge, but it's in an awkward position and would require a small wire or something with 600 grit wrapped on it, and even then it would take more time than I want to put into it. My solution was to harden the Hell out of my homemade EDP. So far so good.

Southwind
10-07-2012, 13:56
I am convinced that the real problem is that 17 degree slant in the extractor claw. Think about it. The extractor is only under maximum tension when the barrel is all the way up and the slide is in battery. Once you link down, because of that angle, the extractor has moved in a little and is not under full tension. And that is the point where extraction/ejection happens, not when the barrel is up. And the rather weak spring setup doesn't help. ...

What I really wonder is if the Apex folks have corrected that blunder. Anyone take a picture of the front of one showing the claw angle?

I think you are exactly right. Here are some rough measurements of the force required to knock the casing loose from the extractor when the casing is just before contacting the ejector.

Stock extractor, stock SLB: 55 grams
Old nonLCI extractor, nonLCI SLB: 185 grams.

Some intermediate numbers:
Stock extractor, nonLCI SLB: 90 grams
nonLCI extractor, stock SLB: 135 grams

From the pictures I've seen of the Apex extractor, it looks to me like it is nonLCI with the parallel claw.

Incidentally, I'm about ready to declare victory using the nonLCI extractor and the 30274 ejector. I've shot about 200 rounds with that combination with only one casing hitting me in the chest. All others went about 6 feet at 4 o'clock.

Even with the nonLCI extractor and the 336 ejector, I only got 3 to the head and one to the shoulder out of 125 rounds. I used to get that many out of one magazine.

FWIW, I tried half a dozen shots with the new setup without a mag. I got 2 falling through the mag well and one stovepipe but three actually ejected. Not very well, to be sure, but they did eject.

I have had one failure to feed, the only one in some 900 rounds. For now, I'm going to blame it on the KCI mag.

I'm still not completely happy - I think it should eject perfectly without assistance from the next cartridge. But the only place I can think of to look next is the extractor spring so I will be pondering what you've been doing there.

dhgeyer
10-07-2012, 14:11
Southwind: That is a very interesting and informative post. Thank you! Those numbers are very telling indeed.

I have found the answer to my own question. The Apex extractor will not have the angle. I first determined this by doing a Google Image search and looking carefully at some pictures of the Apex unit. Then I really hit gold. I don't remember where, but I found a posting (or maybe it's even on their website - I just forget) where Randy Lee talks about the development and his thoughts on the Apex extractor. He confirms that, in his opinion, the angled stock extractor is a major problem, and the Apex unit will have a claw the edge of which is parallel with the surface opposite it. In other words, up and down, not angled.

Now if they would just go into real production so I can get one.........

molar
10-07-2012, 17:44
Southwind: That is a very interesting and informative post. Thank you! Those numbers are very telling indeed.

I have found the answer to my own question. The Apex extractor will not have the angle. I first determined this by doing a Google Image search and looking carefully at some pictures of the Apex unit. Then I really hit gold. I don't remember where, but I found a posting (or maybe it's even on their website - I just forget) where Randy Lee talks about the development and his thoughts on the Apex extractor. He confirms that, in his opinion, the angled stock extractor is a major problem, and the Apex unit will have a claw the edge of which is parallel with the surface opposite it. In other words, up and down, not angled.

Now if they would just go into real production so I can get one.........

I have an Apex extractor. I can confirm that the claw is parallel to the breechface

molar
10-07-2012, 19:38
I have gen 2.5 26 with cast extractor and non-lci edp and a gen 3 17 with non-dip LCI extractor. I field stripped both guns and placed a 9mm case under the extractor to test how the case was held to the breechface. Both extractors held the case tight with little to no movement. I tried the cast extractor, non-dip lci, dip lci, and apex extractor in my problematic gen 3 19. All extractors failed to hold the case firmly to the breechface. I am convinced this is the reason for my erratic ejection.

Someone postulated that the cutout for the extractor in the slide was machined wrong and causing erratic ejection. I'm starting to think that is what is wrong with my gun.

voyager4520
10-08-2012, 04:03
Well, on closer examination of my extractor depressor plunger (henceforth called EDP) I discovered that JBS was right after all. What I thought was a ring is actually wear (scoring). The slide is digging into the front end of the EDP. And this is after only 500 rounds!
My Gen3 G27 that ejected erratically showed the same wear to the EDP. Every case of erratic ejection I've seen in which the EDP was examined, though few, showed the same wear. I wonder if the EDP channel may be too tight.

My suspicion at the time was that part of the EDP is slightly tapered and gets wider toward the muzzle end. In my G27 the gap between the extractor claw and breech face is noticeably bigger than in my G23, even when the extractors are swapped between the two. That suggests to me that the extractor indeed sits further forward in the slide, allowing the EDP to protrude slightly more from its channel with the slightly smaller diameter portion rubbing against the opening of that channel. There's a similar wear mark on the EDP of my G23 but it's ever so slightly further forward and it's no where near as pronounced.

dhgeyer
10-08-2012, 06:41
My Gen3 G27 that ejected erratically showed the same wear to the EDP. Every case of erratic ejection I've seen in which the EDP was examined, though few, showed the same wear. I wonder if the EDP channel may be too tight.

My suspicion at the time was that part of the EDP is slightly tapered and gets wider toward the muzzle end. In my G27 the gap between the extractor claw and breech face is noticeably bigger than in my G23, even when the extractors are swapped between the two. That suggests to me that the extractor indeed sits further forward in the slide, allowing the EDP to protrude slightly more from its channel with the slightly smaller diameter portion rubbing against the opening of that channel. There's a similar wear mark on the EDP of my G23 but it's ever so slightly further forward and it's no where near as pronounced.

As I have said before, based on my gun at least, too tight isn't the problem. There enough room in the EDP channel for the EDP to wiggle a little, so it's not binding. My guess is that the front end of the channel is very hard and very sharp.

You have said something very interesting that hasn't been mentioned before. That is that there is a different amount of space between the extractor claw and the breech face with different slides and the same extractor. Different models I realize, so not apples to apples. Still, I wonder if this doesn't lend some credibility to those who are saying that some of the slides are out of spec. It would be interesting to get a few owners of the same model and generation together and try this.

molar
10-08-2012, 09:19
As I have said before, based on my gun at least, too tight isn't the problem. There enough room in the EDP channel for the EDP to wiggle a little, so it's not binding. My guess is that the front end of the channel is very hard and very sharp.

You have said something very interesting that hasn't been mentioned before. That is that there is a different amount of space between the extractor claw and the breech face with different slides and the same extractor. Different models I realize, so not apples to apples. Still, I wonder if this doesn't lend some credibility to those who are saying that some of the slides are out of spec. It would be interesting to get a few owners of the same model and generation together and try this.

My slide is definately out of spec. See my post above

I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure

dhgeyer
10-08-2012, 10:13
My slide is definately out of spec. See my post above

I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure

So the winner is: "Tolerance Stacking". I think that's what someone called it. Not one issue in every case, but sloppy QC all over the system. Bad extractors, bad slides, bad EDP's, and who knows what else.

"Buying a Glock is like a box of choklits - you never know what you're gonna' get. My mama told me that".

I guess that's what I'm going to believe from now on about Glock. And I don't think Glock is the only company doing this.

molar
10-08-2012, 10:36
So the winner is: "Tolerance Stacking". I think that's what someone called it. Not one issue in every case, but sloppy QC all over the system. Bad extractors, bad slides, bad EDP's, and who knows what else.

"Buying a Glock is like a box of choklits - you never know what you're gonna' get. My mama told me that".

I guess that's what I'm going to believe from now on about Glock. And I don't think Glock is the only company doing this.

Yep. Voyager is absolutely right about the slot for the extractor being machined too far forward in some new 9mm glocks. It makes perfect sense and would explain why 99% of the time erratic ejection occurs, it is a model 19.

It seems some folks are having issues with just the extractor being out of spec and replacing the extractor solves all ejection problems. I consider them lucky.

If one has to use the 30274 ejector to get decent ejection, then I suspect an out of spec slide is at play. In my gun, it appears that the case mouth is dropping down early during the extraction phase, hitting the ejector at different points each time, thus leading to erratic ejection. It appears the 30274 is just a band aid fix by altering ejection enough to compensate for the poor hold on the case by the extractor. I bet Glock knows that some of their slides are out of spec but don't want to replace them because that would be very expensive compared to a new ejector.

voyager4520
10-08-2012, 17:38
I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure
The .40 extractor claw is set a little farther back than a 9mm claw. I can't find the picture now but there was a picture on this forum of a 9mm and .40 extractor set right on top of each other that showed this. The .40 claw is angled rearward by 5 degrees to help raise the case mouth of the larger .40 casing up higher before it starts to exit the ejection port, the top of the claw is set a little closer to the breech face.

Some people have been able to drop a .40 extractor right into their 9mm slides and it fixed the ejection problem, however one person on this forum had to file down the top of the claw slightly to allow the 9mm case rim to slide under the claw properly. Once he did, it worked and fixed the ejection problem, but this lends to the idea that there is variation in how the cut-out in the slide for the extractor is placed.

molar
10-08-2012, 18:37
The .40 extractor claw is set a little farther back than a 9mm claw. I can't find the picture now but there was a picture on this forum of a 9mm and .40 extractor set right on top of each other that showed this. The .40 claw is angled rearward by 5 degrees to help raise the case mouth of the larger .40 casing up higher before it starts to exit the ejection port, the top of the claw is set a little closer to the breech face.

Some people have been able to drop a .40 extractor right into their 9mm slides and it fixed the ejection problem, however one person on this forum had to file down the top of the claw slightly to allow the 9mm case rim to slide under the claw properly. Once he did, it worked and fixed the ejection problem, but this lends to the idea that there is variation in how the cut-out in the slide for the extractor is placed.

The 40 non LCI extractor in my gen 3 19 holds a 9mm case to the breechface in the same manner as my gen 2.5 26 with non LCI extractor and gen 3 17 with non dip LCI extractor. The dip LCI, non dip LCI, cast non LCI, and Apex extractor all do not hold the case to the breechface well at all. If the 40 cal extractor doesn't work, I think my only option is to get a lone wolf or caspian slide or get rid of the gun.

The 30274 ejection stopped brass to the face, but I've had one horizontal stovepipe and one phase 3 malfunction in 500 rounds. Some folks with erratic ejection say they have not had a stoppage, but it is just a matter of time.

dhgeyer
10-08-2012, 19:49
I broke 750 rounds today. No jams of any kind. I don't think I have it as bad as some. Of course none of the extractor assembly is OEM at this point. It's half aftermarket and half home made. Today I was shooting a handload that's a lighter than my normal one. Brass went mostly high and right with maybe 30% over my head. It all landed 5 to 7 feet away. Nothing to the left or straight back at me. One case hit the top of my head on the way down. I never get hit at all with full power loads.

I did an interesting experiment. I shot ten rounds single feeding. One round in the mag, feed it and shoot. The idea was to take any inconsistency in the position of the next round out of the equation. I then shot a ten round series by loading ten in the mag as one normally would. There was no perceptible difference in the ejection pattern of the two groups. So, at least in my gun, wobbling, jumping, moving, or otherwise unstable next rounds are not a factor.

I have three extractors on order from Glockparts - two OEM and one Lone Wolf Distributers. I plan to experiment with straightening out the angle in the claw and making compensating cuts as needed. I'll need to move the tensioning assembly forward a bit as well. I'm curious to see if that will make a difference, and I don't want to wait for Apex to go into serious production.

If I learn anything significant I'll post results with pics.

molar
10-08-2012, 20:15
I was just reading about Dave Nowlin's fix by filing down the extractor pad that rests against the slide and see how that might work. The claw of my G22 non lci extractor does not go in as far toward the center of the breechface when installed in my 19 as it does when I drop it in the 22. There is enough difference to visually discern it. I see how filing that pad down could allow the extractor to grip the rim a little better. Just curious if anyone has done this and has it helped?

dhgeyer
10-08-2012, 20:32
I was just reading about Dave Nowlin's fix by filing down the extractor pad that rests against the slide and see how that might work. The claw of my G22 non lci extractor does not go in as far toward the center of the breechface when installed in my 19 as it does when I drop it in the 22. There is enough difference to visually discern it. I see how filing that pad down could allow the extractor to grip the rim a little better. Just curious if anyone has done this and has it helped?

As long as the claw goes in far enough to put pressure in the case groove and maybe a little more, that's all you need. You don't want it too far in when at rest, as this will cause feeding problems as the cartridge struggles to move the extractor out while also jumping through all the other hoops it has to navigate to get into the chamber. It's a balance.

When I start my experiments I know I will need to take some off the pad you refer to in order to compensate for the material I am taking off the claw. However, since there is some tension on the case even in the linked down position with the angled extractor, I don't expect to need or want to take much off the pad. The main thing will be to adjust the tensioning parts so that full tension is applied with the claw effectively in a bit farther than with the angled claw.

molar
10-09-2012, 19:57
I detail stripped my gen 3 17, gen 2.5 26, and problematic gen 3 19 slides and measured from the front edge of the extractor channel to the opposite external surface of the slide. There were no appreciable differences in the dimensions. I don't think the problem lies with the depth of the extractor channel. I still think the extractor is situated too far from the breechface. Due to the angle of the cut in the slide, it appears that filing down the extractor pad per Dave's recommendations would not only apply more biting force to the case rim, but would also swing the extractor in towards the breechface a little. The pad that needs filing is 0.023" on my extractor. I think I'll take off 0.012 and see what it does.

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 01:06
I detail stripped my gen 3 17, gen 2.5 26, and problematic gen 3 19 slides and measured from the front edge of the extractor channel to the opposite external surface of the slide. There were no appreciable differences in the dimensions. I don't think the problem lies with the depth of the extractor channel. I still think the extractor is situated too far from the breechface. Due to the angle of the cut in the slide, it appears that filing down the extractor pad per Dave's recommendations would not only apply more biting force to the case rim, but would also swing the extractor in towards the breechface a little. The pad that needs filing is 0.023" on my extractor. I think I'll take off 0.012 and see what it does.

By coincidence I field stripped my Glock 19 Gen 4, my M&P FS 9mm, and my Kahr CW9 at the same time. Both the M&P and the Kahr eject perfectly, and will eject normally with the mag out (the "1911 test). I lined the slides up together to see if there was a difference in the gap between the breechface and the claw. There was no difference that I could see, although I have no way of measuring precisely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing what you suggest as long as you don't take off so much that you cause feeding problems. I would suggest removing .006" and see how it's feeding before taking off the other .006".

I don't think taking material from the pad will, in and of itself, do any good. If the claw is at the bottom of the groove in the cartridge head with the case where it would be in the linked down position, and if removing the case allows the claw to move in even a little bit more, then lack of inward travel is not the problem. Allowing it to move inward more will not put more tension on it when the spent case is at its lowest position. A stronger spring will. Or a SLB with a longer "head" will.

If you put an empty case in the extractor so that the case is near the bottom of the extractor, where it will be when it's being ejected, you will see that the case, not the pad on the extractor, limits the inward travel of the extractor claw.

However, having said all that, there's nothing wrong with experimenting as long as you have a spare extractor on hand in case you cause feeding issues. If I am wrong and your idea works, of course I'd like to know about it.

I have three spare extractors, two new non dip Glock and 1 LWD, arriving later today. I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. I already have a White Sound Defense extra power EDP spring in there, and spares in case I compress it too much and deform it.

I believe, along with Randy Lee, that taking the angle off the claw and putting more tension on it will help. My goal is to make this gun pass the 1911 test. Even though it has never jammed, the fact that it will not pass this test bothers me. I would like to see this gun eject as predictably as my other 9mm pistols.

Assuming the Fedex truck gets here in time, I will make my modifications and go test them at the range all later today. I will post results. If I did any good I'll post photos.

Beretta92guy
10-10-2012, 04:16
I have to say I am really questioning my decision to buy a Glock next year. A gun with enough extractor problems to pop a Google search result to the top of the list seems problematic as a tool for defending one's life. My problem is that the Gen 4 Glocks are the first ones that feel comfortable in my hand so buying an older more reliable Glock is not something I am interested in. Frustrating. Surely Glock will address this issue eventually? I wonder if the company will retain its closed mouth obtuse "Glocks never fail" policy when Gaston is no longer around?

:goodpost:

danNiB-X
10-10-2012, 04:40
Though it seems you are a talented craftsman, this all seems a little extreme...You could have sent it back to Glock? That is unless you are enjoying spending your time hand crafting parts to make a fairly new weapon function the way it should? (Not trying to be a jerk...)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

molar
10-10-2012, 04:51
By coincidence I field stripped my Glock 19 Gen 4, my M&P FS 9mm, and my Kahr CW9 at the same time. Both the M&P and the Kahr eject perfectly, and will eject normally with the mag out (the "1911 test). I lined the slides up together to see if there was a difference in the gap between the breechface and the claw. There was no difference that I could see, although I have no way of measuring precisely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing what you suggest as long as you don't take off so much that you cause feeding problems. I would suggest removing .006" and see how it's feeding before taking off the other .006".

I don't think taking material from the pad will, in and of itself, do any good. If the claw is at the bottom of the groove in the cartridge head with the case where it would be in the linked down position, and if removing the case allows the claw to move in even a little bit more, then lack of inward travel is not the problem. Allowing it to move inward more will not put more tension on it when the spent case is at its lowest position. A stronger spring will. Or a SLB with a longer "head" will.

If you put an empty case in the extractor so that the case is near the bottom of the extractor, where it will be when it's being ejected, you will see that the case, not the pad on the extractor, limits the inward travel of the extractor claw.

However, having said all that, there's nothing wrong with experimenting as long as you have a spare extractor on hand in case you cause feeding issues. If I am wrong and your idea works, of course I'd like to know about it.

I have three spare extractors, two new non dip Glock and 1 LWD, arriving later today. I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. I already have a White Sound Defense extra power EDP spring in there, and spares in case I compress it too much and deform it.

I believe, along with Randy Lee, that taking the angle off the claw and putting more tension on it will help. My goal is to make this gun pass the 1911 test. Even though it has never jammed, the fact that it will not pass this test bothers me. I would like to see this gun eject as predictably as my other 9mm pistols.

Assuming the Fedex truck gets here in time, I will make my modifications and go test them at the range all later today. I will post results. If I did any good I'll post photos.

FWIW, the Apex extractor did not solve my ejection problems, so I think more than extractor geometry and lack of extractor tension are at play, at least on my gun

molar
10-10-2012, 04:54
Though it seems you are a talented craftsman, this all seems a little extreme...You could have sent it back to Glock? That is unless you are enjoying spending your time hand crafting parts to make a fairly new weapon function the way it should? (Not trying to be a jerk...)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

danNiB-X
10-10-2012, 05:15
Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

I am aware that these Gen 4 extractors (Especially the 19's) have been an issue, I guess I didn't truly realize to what extent...If I had these issues I would beat the door down with phone calls until they were sick of me.

Southwind
10-10-2012, 07:18
... I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. ...

Have you looked at a non-LCI extractor? Sounds like that's what you're going to make.

JBS
10-10-2012, 07:26
Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

Molar, if I may ask what ejector is currently installed in your pistol?

molar
10-10-2012, 07:39
Molar, if I may ask what ejector is currently installed in your pistol?

30274

With the 336 it was horrible. BTF every 3 or 4 rounds and a stovepipe every couple of mags.

Now, I'll get a stovepipe every couple hundred rounds. Still unacceptable

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 07:44
Have you looked at a non-LCI extractor? Sounds like that's what you're going to make.

Yes, that is pretty much what I'm going to make. If I had one, or knew where to get one, of course I would try that. All the people who have posted good results with that have taken them from older guns they already had. If I could just go out and buy one I would. Do you know of a source? Can I still buy a Gen 2 extractor somewhere and just drop it in? If so, that would certainly be worth a try.

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 07:49
FWIW, the Apex extractor did not solve my ejection problems, so I think more than extractor geometry and lack of extractor tension are at play, at least on my gun

Are you using the Apex extractor right now? Or are you planning to experiment with stock ones?

If you're done with the Apex extractor and spring set, I will buy it from you happily. It might not help, but I'm in experiment mode.

Southwind
10-10-2012, 07:54
Yes, that is pretty much what I'm going to make. If I had one, or knew where to get one, of course I would try that. All the people who have posted good results with that have taken them from older guns they already had. If I could just go out and buy one I would. Do you know of a source? Can I still buy a Gen 2 extractor somewhere and just drop it in? If so, that would certainly be worth a try.

I found mine on Ebay but I noticed later that Midway has them. I got the SLB from Midway

molar
10-10-2012, 08:29
Are you using the Apex extractor right now? Or are you planning to experiment with stock ones?

If you're done with the Apex extractor and spring set, I will buy it from you happily. It might not help, but I'm in experiment mode.

Friday I'm going to the range. I will try the Apex with non-lci spring loaded bearing as I believe it will put more tension on the extractor. I will also try the non lci cast extractor and SLB from my Gen 2.5 26, the non-dip LCI from my perfect Gen 3 17, a non lci extractor from a Gen 2 22, and the stock extractor I'm going to modify by taking some off the pad.

I also plan on taking all the internals out of my problematic Gen 3 19 slide and putting them in the 17 slide. If the 17 then runs perfect as I expect it will, I'll know for sure I have an out of spec slide on the 19.

If none of that works, I'll call it a loss and ditch the gun. I'm not about to spend $200 bucks for a new slide. If it comes to that, I'll gladly sell you the Apex extractor.

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 10:49
I found mine on Ebay but I noticed later that Midway has them. I got the SLB from Midway

Thank you! I will keep that in mind.

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 14:36
Success! But not the way I expected. The Fedex truck showed up this AM with, among other things, 2 new non-dipped extractors from Glock. I took one to the shop and did my best to imitate an old non-LCI type extractor. Took out the claw angle, cut the pad that spaces it to the frame more than I intended. I also made a Spring Loaded Bearing (SLB) with a much longer "head" to really tension the already 20% extra power White Sound Defense extractor depressor plunger spring (EDPS). I used my homemade extractor depressor plunger (EDP) (see pics above).

Well, got to the range and it didn't work. Gun didn't jam, but it still sent low power loads into my face.

Luckily I had brought the other new non-dip extractor with me. I installed that with my homemade EDP, the White Sound EDPS, and the SLB I had originally made with only a slightly longer "head" - probably about like a non-LCI SLB. This combination works perfectly! I put around a hundred rounds of everything from WWB to +P hollow points and it all went out up and to the right in a relatively normal pattern.

Now - hold your breath: I tried the "1911" test. Didn't think that would ever work. BUT IT DID!!!! About 20 times in a row!

Looking closely at the new non-dip extractor (NDE), I notice that a couple of things are different. The claw is a little closer to the breechface (are you listening MOLAR?). I haven't taken a measurement, but I could swear looking at them stacked up that the extractor itself is a bit longer at the back, which would put a little more tension on it.

It looks like Glock may finally have stepped up to the plate on this one. But, before I get too excited I guess I should wait and see how everyone else makes out with the new NDE. Just because it works in my gun doesn't mean it will work in everyone's. I also should try it with all stock parts in the tensioning channel. Right now none of them are.

I have lost interest in the Apex extractor. I hope Apex doesn't take a bath after all the development effort they put into their extractor. But it is clear to me that I don't need it. It is also clear to me that I was wrong in believing that the 17 degree angle on the claw was the major contributing problem.

So, I have a new theory about why some guns are developing problems after 800, 1000, or 2000 rounds. Maybe the extractor parts (extractor, EDP, EDPS, and SLB) are wearing out. Maybe they all, or some of them, need to be replaced periodically as routine maintenance.

Fire_Medic
10-10-2012, 14:39
Success! But not the way I expected. The Fedex truck showed up this AM with, among other things, 2 new non-dipped extractors from Glock. I took one to the shop and did my best to imitate an old non-LCI type extractor. Took out the claw angle, cut the pad that spaces it to the frame more than I intended. I also made a Spring Loaded Bearing (SLB) with a much longer "head" to really tension the already 20% extra power White Sound Defense extractor depressor plunger spring (EDPS). I used my homemade extractor depressor plunger (EDP) (see pics above).

Well, got to the range and it didn't work. Gun didn't jam, but it still sent low power loads into my face.

Luckily I had brought the other new non-dip extractor with me. I installed that with my homemade EDP, the White Sound EDPS, and the SLB I had originally made with only a slightly longer "head" - probably about like a non-LCI SLB. This combination works perfectly! I put around a hundred rounds of everything from WWB to +P hollow points and it all went out up and to the right in a relatively normal pattern.

Now - hold your breath: I tried the "1911" test. Didn't think that would ever work. BUT IT DID!!!! About 20 times in a row!

Looking closely at the new non-dip extractor (NDE), I notice that a couple of things are different. The claw is a little closer to the breechface (are you listening MOLAR?). I haven't taken a measurement, but I could swear looking at them stacked up that the extractor itself is a bit longer at the back, which would put a little more tension on it.

It looks like Glock may finally have stepped up to the plate on this one. But, before I get too excited I guess I should wait and see how everyone else makes out with the new NDE. Just because it works in my gun doesn't mean it will work in everyone's. I also should try it with all stock parts in the tensioning channel. Right now none of them are.

I have lost interest in the Apex extractor. I hope Apex doesn't take a bath after all the development effort they put into their extractor. But it is clear to me that I don't need it. It is also clear to me that I was wrong in believing that the 17 degree angle on the claw was the major contributing problem.

So, I have a new theory about why some guns are developing problems after 800, 1000, or 2000 rounds. Maybe the extractor parts (extractor, EDP, EDPS, and SLB) are wearing out. Maybe they all, or some of them, need to be replaced periodically as routine maintenance.

Congrats, but the Fedex guy brought me a "dipped" extractor from Glock, I must not have been on the VIP list, lol. :rofl:

JBS
10-10-2012, 14:59
Well do a bunch of measuring tonight and post results,,, and congratulations on your work.

dhgeyer
10-10-2012, 15:07
Congrats, but the Fedex guy brought me a "dipped" extractor from Glock, I must not have been on the VIP list, lol. :rofl:

I called Glockparts.com LLC out in Bailey CO. Someone here told me that he had the new ones. It's in a thread somewhere. Anyway, when I called him I told him specifically not to send dipped extractors. He agreed. Told me he had just gotten a shipment in and, while he hadn't opened them, he assumed they would be the new style. Hope this helps.

molar
10-10-2012, 15:12
Success! But not the way I expected. The Fedex truck showed up this AM with, among other things, 2 new non-dipped extractors from Glock. I took one to the shop and did my best to imitate an old non-LCI type extractor. Took out the claw angle, cut the pad that spaces it to the frame more than I intended. I also made a Spring Loaded Bearing (SLB) with a much longer "head" to really tension the already 20% extra power White Sound Defense extractor depressor plunger spring (EDPS). I used my homemade extractor depressor plunger (EDP) (see pics above).

Well, got to the range and it didn't work. Gun didn't jam, but it still sent low power loads into my face.

Luckily I had brought the other new non-dip extractor with me. I installed that with my homemade EDP, the White Sound EDPS, and the SLB I had originally made with only a slightly longer "head" - probably about like a non-LCI SLB. This combination works perfectly! I put around a hundred rounds of everything from WWB to +P hollow points and it all went out up and to the right in a relatively normal pattern.

Now - hold your breath: I tried the "1911" test. Didn't think that would ever work. BUT IT DID!!!! About 20 times in a row!

Looking closely at the new non-dip extractor (NDE), I notice that a couple of things are different. The claw is a little closer to the breechface (are you listening MOLAR?). I haven't taken a measurement, but I could swear looking at them stacked up that the extractor itself is a bit longer at the back, which would put a little more tension on it.

It looks like Glock may finally have stepped up to the plate on this one. But, before I get too excited I guess I should wait and see how everyone else makes out with the new NDE. Just because it works in my gun doesn't mean it will work in everyone's. I also should try it with all stock parts in the tensioning channel. Right now none of them are.

I have lost interest in the Apex extractor. I hope Apex doesn't take a bath after all the development effort they put into their extractor. But it is clear to me that I don't need it. It is also clear to me that I was wrong in believing that the 17 degree angle on the claw was the major contributing problem.

So, I have a new theory about why some guns are developing problems after 800, 1000, or 2000 rounds. Maybe the extractor parts (extractor, EDP, EDPS, and SLB) are wearing out. Maybe they all, or some of them, need to be replaced periodically as routine maintenance.

I'm listening. I'm gonna have to order a new non-dip lci extractor if none of my other combos work.

Funny you mention extractor parts wearing out. Last night while I had my 3 9mm glocks stripped, I noticed that the EDP assembly was a few mm shorter in my 19 than my 17. The spring was compressed more, resulting in shorter overall length. Now, the interesting part is that my 19 only has 500 rounds through it, while the 17 has several thousand. I wonder if Glock got ahold of some incorrectly manufactured or weak EDP springs? This would not explain why most of the problems occur in the 19, though, as the EDP springs are standard across all models. It may be a contributing factor to those who experience BTF after several rounds, though.

Fire_Medic
10-10-2012, 15:15
I called Glockparts.com LLC out in Bailey CO. Someone here told me that he had the new ones. It's in a thread somewhere. Anyway, when I called him I told him specifically not to send dipped extractors. He agreed. Told me he had just gotten a shipment in and, while he hadn't opened them, he assumed they would be the new style. Hope this helps.

I placed my order with them today thanks, I found the info in a thread over on M4C.

FM :wavey:

molar
10-10-2012, 19:25
I just put calipers on the SLB's from my 19 and 17. The 19's SLB was shorter, but not by as much as I figured. It was 0.015" shorter. I have noticed that it is much easier to take the slide plate of the 19 than my 17 or 26. There can't be much extractor tension at all.

dhgeyer
10-11-2012, 06:51
I just put calipers on the SLB's from my 19 and 17. The 19's SLB was shorter, but not by as much as I figured. It was 0.015" shorter. I have noticed that it is much easier to take the slide plate of the 19 than my 17 or 26. There can't be much extractor tension at all.

That was one of the first things I noticed when I first got my first Gen 4 19 (the one I finally gave up on), and the one I have now. I compared the extractor tension by just pushing it outward with my finger. I did this side by side with my CZ85 Combat, S&W M&P FS 9mm, and my Kahr CW9. The Glock's extractor tension is very weak. That is why the first thing I did was to make an SLB with longer "head" to compress the spring more. Then the stronger spring and my SLB.

The EDP is designed to contact and mate with the SLB, which limits the outward travel of the extractor. I still can't figure out if this "feature" is intended as an integral part of how the extractor is supposed to work. If it is, then it is one easy explanation as to why the guns start to fail after a while. The end of the SLB takes a beating and gets deformed fairly quickly.

1wise1
10-11-2012, 12:28
Seems to this impartial observer like this rises to the level of a candidate for sticky.. Would you guys consider additional photographs illustrating the differences in parts and damage?
And Fire_Medic, where did you find that thread? I can't locate it. Thanks

Paul53
10-11-2012, 16:12
FWIW: Gen 4 19, maybe 1 or 2% weak ejections, landing on my arm, but none to face. Has dipped extractor. Bought a Lone Wolf extractor (only) and was getting BTF so often the gun was unuseable. Back to the stock dipped extractor. SN #SFDXXX.

Southwind
11-29-2012, 06:24
... Here are some rough measurements of the force required to knock the casing loose from the extractor when the casing is just before contacting the ejector.

Stock extractor, stock SLB: 55 grams
Old nonLCI extractor, nonLCI SLB: 185 grams.

Some intermediate numbers:
Stock extractor, nonLCI SLB: 90 grams
nonLCI extractor, stock SLB: 135 grams

...

I thought reopening this thread would be as good a place as any for this observation. Randy Lee has posted instructions for fitting the Gen 3 G19 Apex extractor if necessary. In that post he says that the holding force should be 3.5 to 4 pounds which is 1500 plus grams, nearly 10 times what I got with the old extractor. As best I can tell from his picture, we are measuring the same thing. Wow!

Note that the gen 3 extractor has a nub added at the bottom of the claw to stop the downward travel of the spent brass so it isn't relying on the spring pressure alone to hold it in position. Looks to me like a really great solution.

The post I'm referring to is here:
http://www.apextactical.com/blog/ind...-g-fre-fitting

bentbiker
11-29-2012, 11:27
The post I'm referring to is here:
http://www.apextactical.com/blog/ind...-g-fre-fitting
This link should work a bit better:
http://www.apextactical.com/blog/index.php/random-apex/apex-glock-extractor-g-fre-fitting/

Perhaps a little nub of epoxy would allow enough proof-of-concept testing (firing) with a specific problematic gun before committing to purchase of the Apex part.

Southwind
11-29-2012, 13:34
Thanks for the fix.