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 03-07-2012, 23:25   #181
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noponer View Post
...But.........every other round left its case stuck half in the chamber with the slide almost all the way back... a jam! What the heck? The extractor was slipping off the rim again & again...

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

Win. is in the process of moving their ammo production to Mississippi from IL and has told the workers this for some time. I'll let you figure out why QC is in the crapper. Hint: far less pay and unable to sell their homes in IL.
Tiro Fijo is offline  
Old 03-08-2012, 09:39   #182
Noponer
Senior Member
 
Noponer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
NOT the extractor. It's the ammo. I had the same thing happen in my Gen4 G19 & some other 9mm's. I miked the case heads: WAY under spec.

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

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

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

Last edited by Noponer; 03-09-2012 at 11:25..
Noponer is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 11:37   #183
Noponer
Senior Member
 
Noponer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noponer View Post
I don't think it is the the ammo. I measured the heads, too... outer O.D. & groove O.D. - same as other rounds I have. Also, the extraction problem was gone after I worked on the extractor. And... have some Win 124 gr +p T series which worked fine; I would assume made in the same place.

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Noponer; 03-09-2012 at 11:38..
Noponer is offline  
Old 03-09-2012, 19:07   #184
Aquagear
Senior Member
 
Aquagear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sparks Nv.
Posts: 296
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models)
Aquagear is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 05:30   #185
diamondd2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noponer View Post
Right. I did not take any off that shoulder.

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

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

I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.
diamondd2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 06:19   #186
Ridder
Senior Member
 
Ridder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 181
I have a G34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor.

I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???
__________________
G34 Gen4
Ridder is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 07:37   #187
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 Aquagear View Post
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models)
I think that observation is very astute of you!

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondd2 View Post
I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.
Yeah! Perhaps because these new molded extractors no longer grab the case rim as firmly and positively as they used to. I'm, also, going to suggest that Glock's old polymer frame bugaboo - 'harmonic vibration' - is another contributing factor to this problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridder View Post
I have a G-34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor. I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not? ....
It very well might; but, then again, in my experience so does simply polishing the upper and lower extractor surfaces. (Very slightly reducing the inside shoulder might, too; but, in my opinion, this is a direct result of increasing, 'the bite' of the extractor claw on the rim.) The only thing that's for certain is new Glock pistols would be a lot better off if the factory stopped screwing around with production costs and went back to their former ways of doing things.
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:46   #188
donovan655
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquagear View Post
I am going to throw this up there just to see what readers think. The new finish grey finish on the later Gen 3 and 4 pistols has a rougher feel to it, not as slippery as the old shiny black finish. I am just wondering if the new finish hinders the movement of the extractor in the slide cutout, making the newer guns less tolerant of an out of spec extractor. Something has to be affecting both models, the new RSA helped some Gen4 guns with better slide speed. The Gen3 guns still had the old RSA. (just a thought it has to be something common to both models)
I second Arc Angel...this is an unexplored variable that most certainly could cause the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Polishing the extractor and its apparent success seems to indicate that the finish issue may be more pertinent than most think.
__________________
lots of Glocks, lots of Berettas, no Silverados.
donovan655 is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 12:07   #189
sigpro-fessor
5 Times A Day
 
sigpro-fessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio. The danger Zone.
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridder View Post
I have a G34 Gen4 with the dipped extractor.

I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???
performance seems worse with the LW extractors. Just got two in yesterday.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
sigpro-fessor is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 12:52   #190
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 sigpro-fessor View Post
performance seems worse with the LW extractors. Just got two in yesterday.
Yikes! I bought one too; but, instead of installing it I just threw it in my, 'Glock Box'. I suspect you're right, though. Th LWD extractor I've got, now, is the most poorly finished product I have ever received from Lone Wolf.

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

Last edited by Arc Angel; 03-10-2012 at 13:56..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 13:19   #191
Ridder
Senior Member
 
Ridder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 181
The extractor in my G34 is a "3"
It has the dip.
After 2000 rounds fired it drops out by itself easily.

Are the Glock 9mm with LCI-extractors that are being sold in the webshops (like GP) the same as the one I have now?
__________________
G34 Gen4
Ridder is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 13:46   #192
diamondd2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 732
I just got a new NON-DIP LCI glock 9mm extractor. I got to say it feels tighter in the slide than the DIP extractor. But I do have a 1200 rds on the original dip extractor.
diamondd2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 14:40   #193
Zertek
Senior Member
 
Zertek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,467
I can't believe Glock dumped this crap on us !!!!!! to the extent out of desperation we are experimenting with all of this garbage, unbelievable.....are we really that stupid? guess so.
Zertek is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 15:45   #194
ken grant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: middle ga.
Posts: 1,301
I exchanged non-dip extractors for the dip extractors in my 19 and 26 and ejection got worse in both of them.

Tried polishing the one in the 19 but no change.

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

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

Anyone tried this?
ken grant is online now  
Old 03-10-2012, 16:58   #195
Noponer
Senior Member
 
Noponer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondd2 View Post
I think the shoulder comes in contact with the slide before the cartridge fully ejects.
Maybe so, but I doubt that has much to do with the ejection pattern (& certainly nothing to do with my partial extraction problem).

Once the ejector bumps the cartridge out, I think the extractor is out of play. The shiny spot on the extractor's shoulder is made when the extractor goes inward with no cartridge.
Noponer is offline  
Old 03-10-2012, 21:48   #196
Fastfordsrus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 193
I am going to add a whole new dilemma here I think.. I have a gen 3 08/2008 glossy finished 17 with a stainless guide uncaptured guide rod and NONdip extractor, that I have polished every moving piece of steel that comes off of the slide. It works flawlessly. I have a 12/2011 gen 3 34 dip extractor with factory guide rod that was kind of erractic ejecting UNTIL I polished both sides of the extractor now it hits me in the head EVERY single time. I took both guns shooting today and I first switched the slides to rule out the ejectors being a problem. The brass still hit me in the head. Next I switched the extractors....same problem. Then I switched the plunger, spring and bearing, same and I was using federal ammo which feeds fine from my 17 but not the 34. I also fired five rounds of Hornady factory FTX which also hit me. I took both slides off the guns and put a round in the extractor so I could see how it was contacting on 17 compared to 34... the extractor on the 34 sat at an angle on the brass where it contacted vs. being flat on the side of the brass on my 17. I slowly filed and sanded until they both sat the same against the brass. Still the same. I am really irritated now and not sure what I am going to try next.
__________________
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who dont.

Never buy something for how it is, buy it for how it could be.

Glock "Perfection"- Or at least a good starting point.
Fastfordsrus is offline  
Old 03-11-2012, 05:22   #197
diamondd2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noponer View Post
Maybe so, but I doubt that has much to do with the ejection pattern (& certainly nothing to do with my partial extraction problem).

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

Let me clarify my thoughts here. What I meant is that I believe the extractor shoulder touches the slide before the cartridge is fully released from the extractor. As the cartridge gets pushed by the ejector it pivots in the extractor claw. And right before it the cartridge rim gets released from the extractor claw is when I believe the shoulder of the extractor hits the slide.
diamondd2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2012, 05:24   #198
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 Fastfordsrus View Post
....... Still the same. I am really irritated now and not sure what I am going to try next.
The only thing I don't see mentioned is the ejector. Are you using a #30274? The other thing I'm wondering is just how tightly the claw is grasping the cartridge rim?

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

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

Once the ejector bumps the cartridge out, I think the extractor is out of play. The shiny spot on the extractor's shoulder is made when the extractor goes inward with no cartridge.
Personally, I think the ejector and extractor are BOTH involved. The way I see it, the extractor is pulling the case out of the chamber in an erratic fashion. Erratically extracted cases are coming into contact with the ejector arm at an odd angle, or angles. Hence, the wacks in the head with hot brass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Arc Angel; 03-11-2012 at 05:28..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 03-11-2012, 16:48   #199
voyager4520
-----
 
voyager4520's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SE Colorado
Posts: 8,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridder View Post
I just ordered a LWD 9mm extractor....but does that improve things or not?
I think I read somewhere that the 9mm extractors from LWD that were delivered last summer, were actually .40 extractors....and they improved things....but not the real 9mm's???
That's correct, when the LWD extractors were first released, the 9mm and .40 versions were mixed up with each other, so people who ordered one actually got the other. People who saw the LWD extractor fix the ejection problem in their 9mm Glocks were actually using .40 extractors.

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

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

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

Some people have installed the new ejector and it either didn't fix the ejection problem or it made ejection worse, in most of those cases they then replaced the extractor and the gun started ejecting normally, which sounds to me like even with the new ejector, if the extractor doesn't move freely enough the gun will still eject erratically.
__________________
G23 G27

Last edited by voyager4520; 03-11-2012 at 16:52..
voyager4520 is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 02:55   #200
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 voyager4520 View Post
That's correct, when the LWD extractors were first released, the 9mm and .40 versions were mixed up with each other, so people who ordered one actually got the other. People who saw the LWD extractor fix the ejection problem in their 9mm Glocks were actually using .40 extractors.

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

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

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

Some people have installed the new ejector and it either didn't fix the ejection problem or it made ejection worse, in most of those cases they then replaced the extractor and the gun started ejecting normally, which sounds to me like even with the new ejector, if the extractor doesn't move freely enough the gun will still eject erratically.
The above is useful information! I checked; the G-19 extractor I ordered from LWD has a VERY faint, '3' on it. Should I ever begin to have problems I'll remember these remarks about the 40 caliber extractors and SLB's. (Verifies part of what I've suspected might be causing this problem, too; but, until I read this, I didn't think the SLB is, also, involved.)

Good post, thanks!
Arc Angel 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 18:58.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,459
425 Members
1,034 Guests

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