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 09-10-2012, 18:50   #961
di11igaf
ibew
 
di11igaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 393
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, voilŕ, 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: 285
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: 1,295
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: 1,301
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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Southwest Indiana
Posts: 104
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: 1,011
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: 1,295
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: 8,129
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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

RIP GioaJack!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Fire_Medic is offline  
Old 09-26-2012, 03:00   #973
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,545
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  
Old 09-26-2012, 20:58   #976
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,295
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
I agree with you but in this case they have an original design that worked. If they cannot figure it out, they can undo the "improvements" and fix it that way.
Having said that, there was a time when I had BTF problems back in the 80s I think with a Gen 1 G17. That particular gun was fixed with the use of more powerful ammo.
My current Gen 4 pistols work well.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 09-29-2012, 07:19   #977
pag23
Senior Member
 
pag23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 1,011
Installed the 336 ejector with the non dipped extractor and it appears to have solve my ejection issues. Did have one come back at me with Federal champion 115 Walmart ammo but no issues with 115 and 124 AE, Remington or winchester.

I will take it on another range trip next week and see what happens.
__________________
G23 Gen 4
HK USP 40C
pag23 is offline  
Old 09-29-2012, 19:22   #978
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,413
Is there a 30275 ejector on the new Gen4 9mm Glocks?
My Gen4 G26 has a 30274 ejector and I was just looking at ejectors on Ebay to replace the 336 on my 19 and the ones listed there are 30275...??

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=110891333678
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline  
Old 09-29-2012, 21:06   #979
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug71 View Post
Is there a 30275 ejector on the new Gen4 9mm Glocks?
My Gen4 G26 has a 30274 ejector and I was just looking at ejectors on Ebay to replace the 336 on my 19 and the ones listed there are 30275...??

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=110891333678
It looks like the old style to me.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 11:16   #980
Call 1-9-1-1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,294,967,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug71 View Post
Is there a 30275 ejector on the new Gen4 9mm Glocks?
My Gen4 G26 has a 30274 ejector and I was just looking at ejectors on Ebay to replace the 336 on my 19 and the ones listed there are 30275...??

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=110891333678

There's no 30275 ejector. 30275 is the factory part number
for the whole housing which includes the 30274 ejector.
Call 1-9-1-1 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 13:39.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,257
347 Members
910 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42