GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2012, 12:25   #951
ericgt50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1
So I have pretty much read every post in here.. over two hours.. I ordered a new Gen 3 19 from Kentucky Gun Co this week. I will certainly go to the range and shoot it first out of the box. Is it my understanding that all new Gen 3 19's have the 30274 ejector and the new extractor... OR... should I be concerned if it has the 336 ejector.
ericgt50 is offline  
Old 09-09-2012, 13:26   #952
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here so this may or may not be relevant. My take on the problem with the angled claw is that the force exerted by the claw on the casing decreases as the barrel carries the casing down after firing. For example, when slowly hand cycling the slide with a spent casing chambered and watching the LCI, the LCI is nearly back to "rest" position as soon as the barrel's top flat (whatever its name is) clears the ejection port. When the brass first clears the barrel, a fairly light tap on the bottom of the gun will drop the casing loose (with no magazine).
Personally, I don’t think so. I’m more inclined to go with nothing more than the fired cartridge case changing position, slightly, as it is withdrawn from the chamber. Whether or not the LCI returns deeper into its slide cut is debatable, too. On my G-19 it holds, pretty steady, in place; it’s only the spent cartridge case moving around that causes it to appear to recede back into its groove. We should, all, remember that hand cycling empties (or snap caps) through action is NOT the same thing as actually firing the pistol. Hand cycling cannot duplicate the, ‘snap’ that occurs at the end of the slide’s travel when the EDP whacks into the back edge of the extractor.

I’m starting to think that the force of this, ‘snap’ (and, perhaps, its exact impact point on the back of the extractor, has a lot to do with the final direction the flying brass takes. My own G-19 holds onto its extracted cases all the way to the end of the slide stroke. The only thing that will cause it to fall down the magazine well is if I move the slide very slowly towards the end of its stroke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
IOW, the claw holds best only when a round is chambered. When we need for the claw to hold tightly, the holding force is mostly gone.
Just had this conversation with Dave Humke, owner of Glockparts.com and a certified Glock Armorer who is familiar with this problem, as well as the various methods different Glock owners have used while trying to solve it. So far the results have been checkered; some people are able to fix, or nearly fix, it; and others have had no real luck. The claws with the straight edge are, apparently, intended for Glock 9mm pistols. The other claws with the angled edge are, from what I’ve been told, meant for 40 caliber Glocks.

I don’t think, holding tightly, is critical. Personally, I’m more inclined to go with the claw, ‘taking a deeper bite’. This is, ‘Why’ reducing the height of the, ‘step limiter’ on the inside of a troublesome extractor and immediately behind the claw has occasionally eliminated (or, in my case, mitigated) the BTF problem. I’m saying that a sharp, ‘snap’ and a firm, ‘bite’ seem to go a long way towards proper extraction/ejection in a Glock pistol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
My Gen 3 G19 won't eject at all unless a magazine is present. I'm thinking that the extractor is merely dragging the casing over the new round and reaches the extractor (sic) (ejector) (Ed.) with too little authority to serve as a positive "hinge" for the casing. If this doesn't make any sense, sorry -- I'm learning as I go.
I don’t think this, ‘dragging phenomenon’ is universal to ALL Glocks. If the spent cartridge case drags, at all, then it’s more a function of slide speed than anything else. By the way, no apologies are necessary. We’re, all, ‘flying by the seat of our pants’ on this most recent Glock problem, and learning as we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
Arc Angel,
It has occurred to me that the different shape and particularly the angle of the claw might be no more than compensation for the fact that the extractor is intended to project outwards as a loading indicator and so is angled outwards when a round is chambers. If that is so then the angle of the claw relative to the frame with a chambered round should remain the same. This is no more than speculation since I don't have one of these PC Glocks. English

PS I have just re-read my own post and I had not made it clear enough. Apologies for that and thanks for making the effort.
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about the claw angles (or lack thereof) too. I believe the 40 caliber Glocks have an angle on the claw because: (1) Originally, the 40 caliber extractors were closely modeled after the 9mm extractors which preceded them. (2) This didn’t prove to be 100% reliable because the 40 caliber cases were of a larger diameter than the 9mm’s; consequently, the angle had to be added in order to allow 40 caliber extractors to, ‘take a deeper bite’ on the cartridge rims. I’m in this discussion, English - not just for the joy of posting, but - because I’ve got one of these problem pistols, too; and I’m trying to figure out, ‘Where’ Glock, GmbH suddenly went wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
…… If, for whatever reason, they chose the second method, they would then discover, or anticipate, a problem with the angle of the claw face. The new design has kept the pivot point in the same place and the back of the extractor gets its extra projection by being rotated further outwards. That rotates the front of the extractor as well, of course, but the change in the angle also applies to the face of the claw which then needs to be "bent" further back to compensate. This should then produce a claw that seems different on the body of the extractor but actually maintains the same relationship to the pivot point as before. If this is so then Glock would have maintained what worked before although it appears different.
Yup! Don’t know; wasn’t there; but, yes, that is another possibility for interested Glock owners to consider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
Alternatively, the above is rubbish and Glock changed the angle of the extractor claw face because they thought it would make it work better. I can't check on this idea because all my Glocks are now relatively old Gen 3s and I am not, in any case, where they are. (My original Gen 3 G20 was crushed by my gun crazed government!) If the two types could be lined up, one on top of the other so that the pivot points and claw faces were aligned, any difference or lack thereof could be seen. This would not be all that easy in practice because you can't just stick a pin through their pivot points to align one of the critical points.
It’s only in recent years that I’ve begun to appreciate that not just lone individuals, BUT an entire nation(s) of individuals is capable of going insane. Mass insanity actually is a real, socially viable phenomena. Imagine what happened in Dunblane, Scotland back in ‘96: One bitter homicidal lunatic with a murderous temperament and a couple of guns served as a political catalyst to bring about the almost total disarmament of an entire nation of generally sane and largely law abiding people!

Worse! Along with most firearms, English jurisprudence, also, seems to have taken another extreme, ‘turn for the worst’ and, in addition to firearms, outlawed numerous forms of personal self-defense, too! I’m curious, English, when you turned in your guns did the British government, at least, give you a free jar of Vaseline? (They should have!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
Apart from that hypothesizing, I am sure that you are right about the need for an effective hinge point as the barrel drops and what you are saying is entirely relevant. It is essential that the extractor maintains a FIRM grip on the case rim all the way until the ejector has rotated the case at least 15 or 20 degrees, and 30 or 40 degrees would be better. This is because ejection requires not just that the case is rotated but is given sideways momentum. This happens when the C of G of the case is rotated about the extractor. If the C of G is, say, at 45 degrees to the extractor then the C of G starts to be given a sideways component as soon as it begins to rotate, PROVIDED THAT THE EXTRACTOR KEEPS HOLD OF IT. Provided that the extractor maintains its grip, even if the ejector only causes 15 degrees of movement, the angular momentum will be converted to more sideways momentum as the case continues to rotate from inertia. That sideways momentum will then carry the case cleanly out of the port when the rotation twists the case out of the grasp of the extractor and all will be well.
English, that’s brilliant! (Really, it is.) I concur that the extractor is, for whatever reasons, letting go of the extracted case rims too soon. I came to this conclusion only a few days ago after I ruined, yet, another one of my defective Lone Wolf extractors by excessively filing and polishing in an effort to force it to work. My suspicions have, now, started to run to the strength of the SLB spring, and the strength of the SLB, itself, as well as the length - the exact length - of the EDP rod.

Yesterday I stood right next to a fellow who was shooting a G-21. It had beautiful, flat to the side and straight out ejection. As for my crappy G-19(RTF2)? Oh, it worked all right; but the ejection was a short upwards arc through the air before landing about a foot off to my right side. (The shooter who was standing right next to me was smiling as my ejected cases landed on the bench right in front of him; but I could, also, tell that he was just a little annoyed.) I was, to say the least, extremely annoyed!

In frustration I shouted down the line, ‘Anybody want to buy my Glock?’ ‘It’s an RTF2 with gills!’ Because many of the other shooters knew what I was struggling with I thought they would laugh; but, instead, one of them came back at me with, ‘Heck yeah, I will.’ ‘How much are you asking?’ I had to immediately calm him down with the remark that my G-19(RTF2) didn’t really work all that well; and unlike the company who made and sold it to me, I won’t dupe other people with defective merchandise. The interested buyer (Who was shooting a 1911 Colt, ‘Gold Cup’!) seemed disappointed when I told him, ‘No’. (He would have been really disappointed, though, if I'd gone ahead and given him, 'the deal of a lifetime' on this marginally performing pistol!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
All of that depends on the extractor maintaining its grip for long enough. Action and reaction are equal and opposite and acceleration can be produced only by the application of external force. Since the case is being accelerated sideways out of the port the extractor must supply an equal and opposite force. This it can do only when it is gripping the case hard enough to stop it sliding out towards the ejector.

If the extractor is not gripping it will provide a pull to the rear which is equal and opposite to the push to the front of the ejector. That will produce a rotation of the case without any sideways motion and any ejection will be the result of random impacts of the rotating case with the interior of the port.

In short, if your pistol drops an empty case, through the magazine well once it is withdrawn from the chamber, with no more than a tap on the frame to encourage it on its way, you must have faulty ejection. How this is fixed all follows in principle from the above.
Personally, I don’t think the extractor letting go results in, ‘random impacts of the rotating case with the interior of the port’. If this were true then Glock, GmbH wouldn’t have given us these ridiculous, ‘shovel head’ ejectors. I’m of the opinion that a freely moving case - Which is actually gripped by the extractor claw BELOW the case centerline - simply gets struck by the ejector head and spun UPWARDS AND BACKWARDS out of the pistol. The extent and degree to which this happens depends solely upon how well the fired case is held in contact throughout the ejection cycle. (In other words I’m agreeing with you.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
When a round is not holding the extractor partly open it must not close against the breech face because a loading round has to be able to slide up between its face and the breech face. This is the purpose of the step on the extractor. It blocks the inward movement of the extractor by contact with the slide. If it is blocked too early in its movement, it will prevent the extractor closing enough to grip the rim of the case. This is why most of the fixes for this problem involve shortening that step. Please note that this is shortening and not polishing - which will achieve nothing.
True! (And I thank you for that.) It’s, also, been my experience that there has to be a certain amount of, ‘snap’ as the cartridge comes up out of the magazine. The slide’s, ‘pickup rail’ can’t just push the next cartridge along; it must, also, be fully disengaged before the cartridge becomes level with the mouth of the chamber; otherwise the cartridge rim is going to have a hard time slipping underneath the extractor’s claw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
The other principle problem is that excessive friction in the fit of the extractor to the frame is jamming it before it closes enough. This is why the other major component of a fix is to make sure the movement of the extractor in the slide is free and to polish the sides of the extractor until enough roughness or thickness has been removed to provide free movement. Note again. Polishing here is not done with a Q-Tip. You have to remove metal and you need to keep the sides flat and parallel! This is best done with fine grade flatting paper held on a flat surface like plate glass but many kinds of work surface are quite flat enough.
Yes! I agree, and have already used this solution with partial success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
The more subtle problem is the shape and length of the nose of the extractor. This interacts with the varied profiles of different manufacturers' cartridge case rims. If the nose is too long or too thick, its movement inwards will be blocked before it is closed far enough backwards to grip. Before and after the round is chambered, all this means is that the case is pushed out of line with the chamber and so it would seem unimportant.

It might be so but it might be that, in the small time that is available before the impact with the ejector, the extractor is chattering and so grips poorly at impact with erratic results. In those case where one manufacturer's rounds work when others fail, or vice versa, I suspect that rim profile variation is the cause. If this is happening you should be able to see movement of the extractor as you slowly chamber of extract a round as the case reaches the point where it passes the stabilization point provided by the chamber. This is not precisely the point at which the case enters or leaves the chamber since it will be able to wobble a little further in than that. I do hope all this helps some understand and fix their problem.

English
I honestly hadn’t thought about, ‘case chatter’; but, yeah, I suppose that it’s possible. Now, I want to know, ‘Why’? In the alternative, everything might start going wrong when the extractor fails to take a proper, ‘bite’ to begin with?
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 09-09-2012, 15:58   #953
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post
I came to this conclusion only a few days ago after I ruined, yet, another one of my defective Lone Wolf extractors by excessively filing and polishing in an effort to force it to work.
You are definitely trying hard to solve the problem, I wish more people would do the same.
I'd like to throw a couple of ideas your way, I don't have the problem and I don't want to change anything and create a problem but, if I had the problem, along with what you tried I would experimenting bending the ejector up a very small amount, a couple of thousands or so and checking for results.
I also wonder if a different caliber extractor (40?) adjusted for the 9mm could help.
Many 1911 gunsmiths "tune" the extractor and ejector to get the desired ejection pattern. Perhaps we need to do something similar till Glock gets off their butts.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 00:28   #954
voyager4520
-----
 
voyager4520's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SE Colorado
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericgt50 View Post
Is it my understanding that all new Gen 3 19's have the 30274 ejector and the new extractor... OR... should I be concerned if it has the 336 ejector.
A Gen3 G19 will have a 336 ejector. As far as extractors, it could have either a dipped-top or flat-top "MIM" extractor. There's no real difference I know of between the two extractors, either is just as likely to work properly.

There's nothing wrong with the 336 ejector, the 30274 ejector was made to change the angle of ejection enough to compensate for another problem. Most new Glocks don't have the problem, but some do. And from what I can tell that problem is that the extractor for one reason or another is not firmly holding the rim of the spent casing to the breech face, allowing the casing to flop around as the ejector hits it resulting in erratic ejection. Rarely the problem is caused by an out-of-spec extractor because replacing the extractor fixes the problem, but more commonly it's caused by something else and I believe that is that the slide is out-of-spec in some way. With my G27 I believe the cut-out in the slide which holds the extractor was not positioned correctly, having the effect of the extractor claw sitting further forward than normal. A .40 28926 ejector and a replacement non-LCI 15 degree extractor w/ non-LCI spring loaded bearing fixed the ejection in that gun.

If your G19 ejects erratically, I would order a Gen4 trigger housing that has the 30274 ejector along with a replacement 9mm LCI extractor. I'd install the replacement extractor and install the 30274 ejector into the Gen3 trigger housing that's already inside the gun because you can't use a Gen4 trigger housing in that gun. Here's a thread that talks about how to install the 30274/28926 ejectors into Gen3's:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthre...5#post18115775
You would need to remove the Gen3 trigger housing from the frame of the gun, then remove the 336 ejector from that trigger housing. Then you remove the 30274 ejector from the Gen4 trigger housing, and insert the 30274 ejector into the Gen3 trigger housing. Then put the Gen3 trigger housing back into the frame.

Here's a post with some detail strip resources as well:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost...63&postcount=2
__________________
G23 G27

Last edited by voyager4520; 09-10-2012 at 00:31..
voyager4520 is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 08:21   #955
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nraman View Post
You are definitely trying hard to solve the problem, I wish more people would do the same. I'd like to throw a couple of ideas your way, I don't have the problem and I don't want to change anything and create a problem; but, if I had the problem, along with what you tried I would experimenting bending the ejector up a very small amount, a couple of thousands or so and checking for results.

I also wonder if a different caliber extractor (40?) adjusted for the 9mm could help. Many 1911 gunsmiths "tune" the extractor and ejector to get the desired ejection pattern. Perhaps we need to do something similar till Glock gets off their butts.
Thanks for your encouragement and help!

I’m out more than $60 bucks playing around with this thing; I’m frustrated; and I keep telling myself that (1) I still own a set of calipers, (2) I reloaded for almost 40 years, and (3) I should be able to figure out a simple mechanical problem - Yes? (Not so far though, huh; and, after reading your reply, I decided to take a fresh look at things. Know what! I think I’ve finally got it. I really really do!)

I just finished rereading this page and reanalyzing Southwind’s and English’s remarks. Then I found the most recent contribution from Voyager4520. You know what, Gentlemen? We’re, all, dancing around the same conclusion. So, ……. I decided to go to the safe, take out another one of my Glock pistols that I KNOW works, and make a close comparison between a flawless operating 3rd gen. G-21, and an on again/off again 3rd gen. G-19(RTF2). When I did I had the advantage of all the remarks made by: SouthWind, English, nraman, and Voyager4520. (Don’t think you guys haven’t helped because without analyzing what’s already been said, I'm sure that I’d still be scratching my head.) Like I said: We got it; it’s just that because the problem is multifaceted none of us realized that we already had the answer.

Many people have suspected that the extractor claw is, somehow, involved in the, ‘BTF problem’. (That’s, ‘Brass To Face’ for the still uninitiated!) Well, yeah, it is. So, the question becomes, ‘How’? The real cause of this problem has been obscured by the fact that it’s one of, at least, two actual problems; AND, the correct solution has been obfuscated by Glock, GmbH’s parsimonious attempt at an expedient solution. (The introduction of two completely unnecessary, ‘shovel nose’ ejectors: the #30274 in 9mm, and the #28926 in 40 caliber.)

I stated in an earlier reply that I am positive: If the extractors are OK, then the respective #336 and #1882 ejectors are going to be OK, as well. So, ‘Why’ the new shovel-nose ejectors? MONEY! Glock, GmbH has no intention of returning to the more expensive-to-produce, original stamped steel extractors with their more precise die-stamped dimensions - That is, ‘WHY’.

I suspect I could have figured this problem out, ‘right from the get-go’ IF it hadn’t been obscured by another less likely and easier to spot manufacturing anomaly. (A lot of us could have!) Straight off, the extractor’s body between the horizontal top and bottom, ‘flats’ was too thick for the extractor to move easily in its slide cutout. After these new extractors started to show up it didn’t take long for, ‘the cognoscenti’ among us to quickly start polishing down, ‘the flats’ in order to introduce freer extractor motion and, thus, alleviate the binding that was, obviously, taking place. If your problem Glock pistol is anything like my problem Glock pistol then, after some judicious extractor polishing, a lot of the original BTF problem disappeared, BUT not 100% of it - Right! So, the question remains, ‘Why’?

After rereading the comments on this page I gathered up the determination to take another look at this exceedingly annoying Glock problem; and, after a minute examination of two Glock pistols - one that worked, and one that did not - I think I’ve finally figured out, ‘What’ is going wrong: (Ready?) The problem claws are NOT holding onto the case rims with any degree of excessive tightness; BUT, neither are the claws on extractors that work flawlessly!

Either claw/ejector combination has the potential present to rotate a case out of the claw, upwards, and backwards into the shooter’s face - EITHER CLAW/EJECTOR COMBINATION! So, ‘Where’, then, does the heart of this problem lie? Weeee ….. ll, the real problem is at the other end of the extractor:

THE EXTRACTOR'S REAR HEIGHT DIMENSION APPEARS TO BE TOO NARROW; AND THIS ALLOWS THE EXTRACTOR UNIT TO - PERHAPS NOT, ‘CHATTER’, BUT - CHANGE POSITION BETWEEN SHOTS AND THROW, OR, ‘ROLL OFF’ SOME EJECTED CASES BACK INTO THE SHOOTER’S FACE.

If you increase that rear dimension - or, perhaps, correct the pivot pin that hides behind it - WITHOUT also excessively thickening the front of the extractor as well then, voilà, your BTF problem will disappear. I strongly suspect that the factory engineers are (as usual) well aware of the origins of the BTF problem. Glock, GmbH could have fixed it by now if they really wanted to - and, without resorting to expedient shovel-nosed ejectors, too; but you’ve got to remember: (1) Glock, GmbH is cheap; and, (2) Glock doesn’t really give a damn about the American civilian market.

As long as there is excessive vertical, ‘play’ in the rear of these new Glock extractors, fired cartridge cases are going to continue to have an increased potential to slide off the loosely fitting claw; and, IF THE EXTRACTOR DROPS EVEN THE SMALLEST FRACTION OF AN INCH AT THE REARWARD EXTENT OF ITS TRAVEL, then you’re going to end up ducking brass to your face.




NOTE: There is a possibility that the round, 'pivot pin' on the extractor's rear inside edge might, also, be off. Don't really know; BUT, I am certain that if you get rid of the excessive up and down play in the rear section of these new extractors then your BTF problem is going to be solved.

Last edited by Arc Angel; 09-10-2012 at 11:03..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 10:54   #956
Southwind
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Southwest Indiana
Posts: 98
ArcAngel, I'm going to have to ponder this a bit before I'm as sure as you are. If I'm understanding right, I don't like your answer as it means there is no ready fix. (unless the ephemeral Apex extractor addresses it.)

I think, though, that my most recent trial is consistent with what you say. I filed a bit off the extractor "step" (LoneWolf extractor). I didn't have much time to try it out so I just shot one mag at the berm (hit it, too, by golly). The ejection was MUCH improved, a nice high arc landing some 6 or 7 feet away as opposed to 2 to 3 feet prior. Still, though, one casing hit me on the upper arm.

I've filed a bit more off the step and hope to try again tomorrow. Also, today's mail should include a non-LCI extractor to play with. I'll compare the dimensions at the back. I'm assuming you are talking about the top to bottom thickness at the post end of the extractor. (It sure would be nice if we could all sit around the same table so we'd know for sure what each other is talking about - this stuff is really hard to describe.)

Before the latest filing of the extractor, I had tried both the stock and a Lone Wolf extractor and both flavors of ejectors in all combinations. I could see no difference except that the 30274 ejector made already weak ejection even weaker to the extent that the brass would dribble out and drop straight down. Both extractors were loose in the slot but a bit gritty so I dressed them with a fine Arkansas stone.

I think it strange that both the extractor change and the ejector change have been reported to solve the problem for some but I had no positive effect at all. Similarly strange is that most G19s are fine but many aren't.

You say your flawless G21 also doesn't grip the brass tightly. I wonder if it will eject with no mag - ever tried that? Some weeks ago, di11igaf posted that his properly ejecting Glock would eject with the mag removed but his newer erratic ejecting one wouldn't. I'm wondering if this is sufficiently common as to be meaningful. Mine will still not eject with no mag, even after getting more positive ejection from filing the step.


___________
Gen 3 G19
March 2012
Southwind is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 13:26   #957
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,284
My first G20, about 16 years ago, ejected every time, but over time it developed a pretty goden dusting embedded in the matte finish round the ejection port, which could only be very fine particles of brass, and it dented the cases. There is no way in which it could have dented the cases if it was just flipping the cases out of the port and so, between the two phenomena, it was not just flipping the cases out of the port.

This leads me to suspect that Glock never got their ejection to be as it should be and that means they did not understand the problem. The fact that they are now having lots of problems which people are fixing or alleviating in various ways that vary from gun to gun suggests that they have lots of things wrong and it has finally caught up with them when new manufacturing techniques have produced minor changes which are enough to tip what was always faulty, though sufficient, ejection over the edge into failing ejection. In what has been demonstrated to be Glock policy over decades, they have first hoped it would go away, then said that it is no problem and to shoot ammunition with more pep in it for a few thousand rounds, then produced a fix (replacement recoil spring) which did nothing, then another (different ejector) which did little more but required a gunsmith to ship it to or required the return of the pistol to Smyrna after which it was returned OK but was often no better. All of this has been seen before with problem G36s apart from the fact that they did not even produce a non working fix or admit there was any problem. (Of course, many at GT know without doubt that there never was a problem other than limp wristing so that does not count!)

English
English is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 13:53   #958
TattooedGlock
NRA LIFE MEMBER
 
TattooedGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South Texas
Posts: 1,624
From what I've seen, and I've handled many Glocks with ejection issues, is that the extractor has nothing to due with the current problems. It's all about the ejector. Put in the right one, with the right springs, problem solved.
__________________
NRA Life Member
If you're a gun owner and not a member, you fail.

GSSF Life Member
1911 Club and Big Dawg Member
TattooedGlock is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 14:07   #959
Southwind
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Southwest Indiana
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by TattooedGlock View Post
From what I've seen, and I've handled many Glocks with ejection issues, is that the extractor has nothing to due with the current problems. It's all about the ejector. Put in the right one, with the right springs, problem solved.
For a gen 3 G19, what is the right ejector and what springs?

Thanks
Southwind is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 15:01   #960
JBS
Senior Member
 
JBS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: TX
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
My first G20, about 16 years ago, ejected every time, but over time it developed a pretty goden dusting embedded in the matte finish round the ejection port, which could only be very fine particles of brass, and it dented the cases. There is no way in which it could have dented the cases if it was just flipping the cases out of the port and so, between the two phenomena, it was not just flipping the cases out of the port.

This leads me to suspect that Glock never got their ejection to be as it should be and that means they did not understand the problem. The fact that they are now having lots of problems which people are fixing or alleviating in various ways that vary from gun to gun suggests that they have lots of things wrong and it has finally caught up with them when new manufacturing techniques have produced minor changes which are enough to tip what was always faulty, though sufficient, ejection over the edge into failing ejection. In what has been demonstrated to be Glock policy over decades, they have first hoped it would go away, then said that it is no problem and to shoot ammunition with more pep in it for a few thousand rounds, then produced a fix (replacement recoil spring) which did nothing, then another (different ejector) which did little more but required a gunsmith to ship it to or required the return of the pistol to Smyrna after which it was returned OK but was often no better. All of this has been seen before with problem G36s apart from the fact that they did not even produce a non working fix or admit there was any problem. (Of course, many at GT know without doubt that there never was a problem other than limp wristing so that does not count!)

English
Of my personal Glocks none have ejection issues so they would not be a candidate for this simple experiment. Has anyone with a poorly ejecting pistol removed the ejector from the trigger mechanism housing and fired the pistol to see if the same poor ejection occurs without the ejector installed. If the ejection is unchanged then I would think that indicates the case is getting ejected by the next round in the mag instead of the ejector. One more simple thing to try.
__________________
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
JBS is offline  
Old 09-10-2012, 18:50   #961
di11igaf
ibew
 
di11igaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post
Thanks for your encouragement and help!

I’m out more than $60 bucks playing around with this thing; I’m frustrated; and I keep telling myself that (1) I still own a set of calipers, (2) I reloaded for almost 40 years, and (3) I should be able to figure out a simple mechanical problem - Yes? (Not so far though, huh; and, after reading your reply, I decided to take a fresh look at things. Know what! I think I’ve finally got it. I really really do!)

I just finished rereading this page and reanalyzing Southwind’s and English’s remarks. Then I found the most recent contribution from Voyager4520. You know what, Gentlemen? We’re, all, dancing around the same conclusion. So, ……. I decided to go to the safe, take out another one of my Glock pistols that I KNOW works, and make a close comparison between a flawless operating 3rd gen. G-21, and an on again/off again 3rd gen. G-19(RTF2). When I did I had the advantage of all the remarks made by: SouthWind, English, nraman, and Voyager4520. (Don’t think you guys haven’t helped because without analyzing what’s already been said, I'm sure that I’d still be scratching my head.) Like I said: We got it; it’s just that because the problem is multifaceted none of us realized that we already had the answer.

Many people have suspected that the extractor claw is, somehow, involved in the, ‘BTF problem’. (That’s, ‘Brass To Face’ for the still uninitiated!) Well, yeah, it is. So, the question becomes, ‘How’? The real cause of this problem has been obscured by the fact that it’s one of, at least, two actual problems; AND, the correct solution has been obfuscated by Glock, GmbH’s parsimonious attempt at an expedient solution. (The introduction of two completely unnecessary, ‘shovel nose’ ejectors: the #30274 in 9mm, and the #28926 in 40 caliber.)

I stated in an earlier reply that I am positive: If the extractors are OK, then the respective #336 and #1882 ejectors are going to be OK, as well. So, ‘Why’ the new shovel-nose ejectors? MONEY! Glock, GmbH has no intention of returning to the more expensive-to-produce, original stamped steel extractors with their more precise die-stamped dimensions - That is, ‘WHY’.

I suspect I could have figured this problem out, ‘right from the get-go’ IF it hadn’t been obscured by another less likely and easier to spot manufacturing anomaly. (A lot of us could have!) Straight off, the extractor’s body between the horizontal top and bottom, ‘flats’ was too thick for the extractor to move easily in its slide cutout. After these new extractors started to show up it didn’t take long for, ‘the cognoscenti’ among us to quickly start polishing down, ‘the flats’ in order to introduce freer extractor motion and, thus, alleviate the binding that was, obviously, taking place. If your problem Glock pistol is anything like my problem Glock pistol then, after some judicious extractor polishing, a lot of the original BTF problem disappeared, BUT not 100% of it - Right! So, the question remains, ‘Why’?

After rereading the comments on this page I gathered up the determination to take another look at this exceedingly annoying Glock problem; and, after a minute examination of two Glock pistols - one that worked, and one that did not - I think I’ve finally figured out, ‘What’ is going wrong: (Ready?) The problem claws are NOT holding onto the case rims with any degree of excessive tightness; BUT, neither are the claws on extractors that work flawlessly!

Either claw/ejector combination has the potential present to rotate a case out of the claw, upwards, and backwards into the shooter’s face - EITHER CLAW/EJECTOR COMBINATION! So, ‘Where’, then, does the heart of this problem lie? Weeee ….. ll, the real problem is at the other end of the extractor:

THE EXTRACTOR'S REAR HEIGHT DIMENSION APPEARS TO BE TOO NARROW; AND THIS ALLOWS THE EXTRACTOR UNIT TO - PERHAPS NOT, ‘CHATTER’, BUT - CHANGE POSITION BETWEEN SHOTS AND THROW, OR, ‘ROLL OFF’ SOME EJECTED CASES BACK INTO THE SHOOTER’S FACE.

If you increase that rear dimension - or, perhaps, correct the pivot pin that hides behind it - WITHOUT also excessively thickening the front of the extractor as well then, voilà, your BTF problem will disappear. I strongly suspect that the factory engineers are (as usual) well aware of the origins of the BTF problem. Glock, GmbH could have fixed it by now if they really wanted to - and, without resorting to expedient shovel-nosed ejectors, too; but you’ve got to remember: (1) Glock, GmbH is cheap; and, (2) Glock doesn’t really give a damn about the American civilian market.

As long as there is excessive vertical, ‘play’ in the rear of these new Glock extractors, fired cartridge cases are going to continue to have an increased potential to slide off the loosely fitting claw; and, IF THE EXTRACTOR DROPS EVEN THE SMALLEST FRACTION OF AN INCH AT THE REARWARD EXTENT OF ITS TRAVEL, then you’re going to end up ducking brass to your face.




NOTE: There is a possibility that the round, 'pivot pin' on the extractor's rear inside edge might, also, be off. Don't really know; BUT, I am certain that if you get rid of the excessive up and down play in the rear section of these new extractors then your BTF problem is going to be solved.
Possibility -since a few of us have tried a few different extractors, with the problem persisting, could the port the extractor sits in be machined too large towards the back rather than the rear of the extractor being too small. I have one problematic glock out of the few I've owned over the years and its pretty bad, I just find it unlikely I have gotten two out of spec extractors, but its possible. If I still had my gen two 19 or my 34 (which both worked flawlessly), I'd try those extractors, EDP's and SLB, but stupidly I sold them before I acquired my 03/12 test fired 19.
Also my current 19 is the only glock I've owned that dents the cases towards the mouth
__________________
There's no place like ~/

Last edited by di11igaf; 09-10-2012 at 18:53..
di11igaf is offline  
Old 09-11-2012, 09:29   #962
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
Arc Angel, I'm going to have to ponder this a bit before I'm as sure as you are. If I'm understanding right, I don't like your answer as it means there is no ready fix. (unless the ephemeral Apex extractor addresses it.)
I don’t like my answer, either!

(But, this is because reality, sometimes, hurts; and I’ve got a nice chunk of my retirement income tied up in an, admittedly operable, but less than 100% functional, Glock Model 19(RTF2).

In my opinion: The only way that Apex Tactical is going to be able to successfully address the Glock extractor problem is by offering Glock owners an oversized extractor that can be custom-fitted into each problem pistol. (Another reason, ‘Why’ the Glock factory is not too keen on really getting into this!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
I think, though, that my most recent trial is consistent with what you say. I filed a bit off the extractor "step" (Lone Wolf extractor). I didn't have much time to try it out so I just shot one mag at the berm (hit it, too, by golly). The ejection was MUCH improved, a nice high arc landing some 6 or 7 feet away as opposed to 2 to 3 feet prior. Still, though, one casing hit me on the upper arm.
Now be careful! I ruined a $23.00 dollar extractor by filing off too much metal from the, ‘step limiters’. Yes, a very slight decrease in the height of the front step limiter WILL improve ejection; however, what you have to watch is that cartridge rims continue to slide underneath your extractor claw as they come up out of the magazine.

(If you screw up and remove too much metal you’ll have no way of knowing if your, ‘improvement’ is, also, forcing the extractor claw to jump over cartridge rims as they are chambered - OK!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
I've filed a bit more off the step and hope to try again tomorrow. Also, today's mail should include a non-LCI extractor to play with. I'll compare the dimensions at the back. I'm assuming you are talking about the top to bottom thickness at the post end of the extractor. (It sure would be nice if we could all sit around the same table so we'd know for sure what each other is talking about - this stuff is really hard to describe.)
Yes, that’s correct. Because the extractor won’t be able to change position as much, the thicker that area of the extractor is, the fewer extraction problems you’re going to have

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
Before the latest filing of the extractor, I had tried both the stock and a Lone Wolf extractor and both flavors of ejectors in all combinations. I could see no difference except that the 30274 ejector made already weak ejection even weaker to the extent that the brass would dribble out and drop straight down. Both extractors were loose in the slot but a bit gritty so I dressed them with a fine Arkansas stone.
Now, you’ve got me wondering whether or not that, ‘extractor pivot pin hole’ at the back of the slide cutout is deep enough? (Or, whether or not the slide cutout, itself, is deep enough too?) ‘Why’ do I say this? Because I don’t imagine you’re extractor claws are grabbing deeply enough; AND, this would explain the problem you’re, also, having with extracted brass dribbling down your magazine well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
I think it strange that both the extractor change and the ejector change have been reported to solve the problem for some but I had no positive effect at all. Similarly strange is that most G19s are fine but many aren't.
‘Mitigate’ the problem as I’ve been able to do with my own problematic G-19? Yes. Eliminate it? I don’t think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
You say your flawless G21 also doesn't grip the brass tightly. I wonder if it will eject with no mag - ever tried that? Some weeks ago, di11igaf posted that his properly ejecting Glock would eject with the mag removed but his newer erratic ejecting one wouldn't. I'm wondering if this is sufficiently common as to be meaningful. Mine will still not eject with no mag, even after getting more positive ejection from filing the step.
All three of my Glock pistols will flip hand-extracted brass to the side. I’ve already mentioned, ‘Why’ I think you’re having this problem. (Which I will admit is exacerbated by the fact that we’re discussing very small fractions of an inch - a few thousandths, in fact.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
……. This leads me to suspect that Glock never got their ejection to be as it should be and that means they did not understand the problem. The fact that they are now having lots of problems which people are fixing or alleviating in various ways that vary from gun to gun suggests that they have lots of things wrong and it has finally caught up with them when new manufacturing techniques have produced minor changes which are enough to tip what was always faulty, though sufficient, ejection over the edge into failing ejection.
Personally, I think many - if not all - of these recent extraction/ejection problems are, ‘cured’ (Read: alleviated) by one simple change: Doing something, anything, that causes the extractor claw to take a deeper bite. A deeper bite on the case rim causes less of an adverse effect from the extractor changing positions from shot-to-shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
In what has been demonstrated to be Glock policy over decades, they have first hoped it would go away, then said that it is no problem and to shoot ammunition with more pep in it for a few thousand rounds, then produced a fix (replacement recoil spring) which did nothing, then another (different ejector) which did little more but required a gunsmith to ship it to or required the return of the pistol to Smyrna after which it was returned OK but was often no better. All of this has been seen before with problem G36s apart from the fact that they did not even produce a non working fix or admit there was any problem. (Of course, many at GT know without doubt that there never was a problem other than limp wristing so that does not count!)
English, you are now one of the few Glock Talkers whom I’ve ever seen admit to an actual problem with G-36’s. Personally I think Evan Marshall, ‘hit the nail smack on the head’ when he stated that MANY of the G-36 frames - and, in particular, the upper section of their magazine wells - were oversized from front-to-back. (Sometimes when it’s late at night, and I’m lying in bed listening to the wind in the trees outside, I wonder to myself, ‘Whatever happened to all those G-36’s with their oversized magazine wells and feed problems?’)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TattooedGlock View Post
From what I've seen, and I've handled many Glocks with ejection issues, is that the extractor has nothing to due with the current problems. It's all about the ejector. Put in the right one, with the right springs, problem solved.
TG, while I respect your opinion, I’ve watched my own G-19 extractor, ‘torque’ its claw off case rims. Sometimes the shift is straight down; and, when that happens, it’s, ‘BTF time’. The only thing a different (shovel-nosed) ejector is going to do is catch a dropping case head and give it more of a push to the side - That’s it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBS View Post
Of my personal Glocks none have ejection issues so they would not be a candidate for this simple experiment. Has anyone with a poorly ejecting pistol removed the ejector from the trigger mechanism housing and fired the pistol to see if the same poor ejection occurs without the ejector installed. If the ejection is unchanged then I would think that indicates the case is getting ejected by the next round in the mag instead of the ejector. One more simple thing to try.
Huh?

I think you're trying too hard! How does removing one of the two principal ejection components help to analyze the problem? In order for ejection to succeed both the extractor AND the ejector must be present. Removing either one of them proves nothing. (Even straight blowback actions have some sort of an ejector - ALL of them!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by di11igaf View Post
Possibility. Since a few of us have tried a few different extractors, with the problem persisting, could the port the extractor sits in be machined too large towards the back rather than the rear of the extractor being too small.
Bingo!

I don’t have one G-19 to compare with another; but this is the one thing I’ve been thinking about; (and suspect is happening) but I’ve no way to test for it. All I’m able to offer is a, ‘working hypothesis’: I suspect that the slide extractor cutouts WERE very slightly enlarged at the time the new (and clearly oversized) MIM extractors were introduced. If this proves to be correct (and I hope I’m wrong!) then a lot of us are going to be sooo …… screwed! Then, only other oversized extractors that can be custom-fitted to each problem pistol would be able to successfully alleviate this problem.

I’ve begun calling around to find one of the original #1 or #2 MIM extractors. The trick to fitting them is to work primarily at the front of the extractor, and immediately behind the claw. In my opinion this is the only area of, ‘the flats’ that should be ever so slightly reduced.
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 17:08   #963
FiremanJim
Gold Membership
 
 
FiremanJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 284
got my new 30274 ejector and non-mim extractor from Glock today,slapped them in and gun ejects like a dream,used the same ammo I have been using for last 1000 rounds or so to keep things consistant
__________________
"when lawyers and judges have to interpret the laws that the layman are governed by,we have a problem"
FiremanJim is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 20:13   #964
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanJim View Post
got my new 30274 ejector and non-mim extractor from Glock today,slapped them in and gun ejects like a dream,used the same ammo I have been using for last 1000 rounds or so to keep things consistant
Did you get a chance to try the G27 extractor?
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 06:39   #965
Pathfinder20
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 55
FiremanJim please give info about the extractor. Wanting to make sure I get the correct part.

Thanks,

Pathfinder20
__________________
NRA Endowment Member

Last edited by Pathfinder20; 09-15-2012 at 06:40..
Pathfinder20 is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 06:58   #966
ken grant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: middle ga.
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathfinder20 View Post
firemanjim please give info about the extractor. Wanting to make sure i get the correct part.

Thanks,

pathfinder20

me also!!!
ken grant is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 08:30   #967
dusty_dragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 645
me also!
dusty_dragon is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 15:30   #968
Southwind
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Southwest Indiana
Posts: 98
Also, do you have gen 3 or gen 4?
Southwind is offline  
Old 09-24-2012, 07:39   #969
pag23
Senior Member
 
pag23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 954
Well I had some ejection issues on my Jun X 2012 Gen 17 Gen 4. It came with the dipped extractor and 30274 ejector. I used 124 & 115 AE with some issuesm then called Glock and got new non dipped extractor... this made the problem worse with ejection, brass to face and slide not locking back. I did shoot 5 different boxes of ammo (4 115 grain & 1 124 grain), about 20 rounds per box. No issues with 147 SXT though. I swapped out the ejector for a 336 and I noticed just trying it manually with snap caps that the ejection was WAY BETTER... I plan to go to the range some point this week and see what happens...
__________________
G23 Gen 4
HK USP 40C
pag23 is offline  
Old 09-25-2012, 13:38   #970
brickboy240
Senior Member
 
brickboy240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 3,481
The Apex extractor is out now.

...problem is most likely solved. You all can stop beating your heads against the wall now.

Apex...doing the job that Glock just will not do! LOL

-brickboy240
__________________
Our founders would be shooting by now!
brickboy240 is offline  
Old 09-25-2012, 19:35   #971
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickboy240 View Post
The Apex extractor is out now.

...problem is most likely solved. You all can stop beating your heads against the wall now.

Apex...doing the job that Glock just will not do! LOL

-brickboy240
I hope we get some reports soon.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 09-25-2012, 20:05   #972
Fire_Medic
CLM Number 261
Polymer Butcher
 
Fire_Medic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Gunshine State
Posts: 8,145
FYI- Aside from the extractor, Apex is also on some pistols reworking the ejection port to help with the erratic ejection.
__________________
Florida Glockers Club #2250, BHP Club #2250, Niners Club #2250, G1 Niners Club #2250, Black Rifle Club #2250, S&W Club #2250, 40SW Club #2250


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

RIP GioaJack!
Fire_Medic is offline  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:00   #973
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,284
You know, when you don't change your design for 30 years or so you tend to lose all those designers who understand how to do so. The engineers that remain are production engineers the ones who steadily improve the production process and the bottom line. When these engineers make small changes to the design to fit with their production requirements they don't really understand the significance of those changes. Eventually they make disastrous mistakes and don't know how to fix them. The consequences are entirely predictable. Amongst other things, they run around like headless chickens doing things that seem as though they might work and claiming the problem is not their fault. It isn't that Glock won't fix the problem but that Glock, as presently orgnized, can't fix the problem because they don't have the people with the skills and knowledge to do so.

English
English is offline  
Old 09-26-2012, 05:43   #974
s64woody
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
There is a product that might be used to build up the thickness of the rear of the extractor, for experimentation only. Metal Set is an epoxy product with metal powder in it. Once set it can be worked like metal, and you could remove material to experiment with different tolerances. Just a thought.
s64woody is offline  
Old 09-26-2012, 07:26   #975
tbc
Member
 
tbc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
You know, when you don't change your design for 30 years or so you tend to lose all those designers who understand how to do so. The engineers that remain are production engineers the ones who steadily improve the production process and the bottom line. When these engineers make small changes to the design to fit with their production requirements they don't really understand the significance of those changes. Eventually they make disastrous mistakes and don't know how to fix them. The consequences are entirely predictable. Amongst other things, they run around like headless chickens doing things that seem as though they might work and claiming the problem is not their fault. It isn't that Glock won't fix the problem but that Glock, as presently orgnized, can't fix the problem because they don't have the people with the skills and knowledge to do so.

English
You nailed it!!!!




Sent from my iPhone 6 :D
tbc is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 632
170 Members
462 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42