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 05-07-2012, 08:12   #541
153
Senior Member
 
153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 233
The hooks and ejectors in the Glock are nothing special, same basic form used in dozens of other handguns. I think once you've polished and even replaced these, the the RSA HAS to be the cause. Looking back, only real difference between Gen 4 and Gen 3 mechanically was the RSA. The new smaller handle would not cause the pistol to malf. Combine the "new" heavily sprung RSA (designed to reduce recoil) with "range" ammo, and voila!

The ammo manufacturers probably do the same things the guys that pack cans of beans and soda bottles - to save a little money, put a less powder in the case. With gun and ammo sales soaring they are probably straining to keep up with demand. Quality may be suffering.

It also seems given the differences between 9 and 40, one spring system is unlikely to work both optimally. That is probably why "erractic ejection" plagues the 9 m/m pistol more than the 40 calibers.

Prehaps one answer is locking back your slide for a few days to "compress" the spring - the same idea as keeping new magazines loaded so they can easily be filled to capacity. I read last night that there is a new "skeletonized" RSA being put out by Glock, maybe that will help resolve this problem. Maybe too, some aftermarket outfit will come out with a more reasonably sprung RSA ..... phew!

Last edited by 153; 05-07-2012 at 08:15..
153 is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:59   #542
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 153 View Post
The hooks and ejectors in the Glock are nothing special, same basic form used in dozens of other handguns. I think once you've polished and even replaced these, the the RSA HAS to be the cause. Looking back, only real difference between Gen 4 and Gen 3 mechanically was the RSA. The new smaller handle would not cause the pistol to malf. Combine the "new" heavily sprung RSA (designed to reduce recoil) with "range" ammo, and voila!

The ammo manufacturers probably do the same things the guys that pack cans of beans and soda bottles - to save a little money, put a less powder in the case. With gun and ammo sales soaring they are probably straining to keep up with demand. Quality may be suffering.

It also seems given the differences between 9 and 40, one spring system is unlikely to work both optimally. That is probably why "erractic ejection" plagues the 9 m/m pistol more than the 40 calibers.

Prehaps one answer is locking back your slide for a few days to "compress" the spring - the same idea as keeping new magazines loaded so they can easily be filled to capacity. I read last night that there is a new "skeletonized" RSA being put out by Glock, maybe that will help resolve this problem. Maybe too, some aftermarket outfit will come out with a more reasonably sprung RSA ..... phew!
Yup! I agree, in large part, with what you've said. However, I continue to suspect these new molded (or, 'dip') extractors are a large part of erratic ejection problems on late 3rd generation G-19's, and 4th generation 9mm and 40 S&W Glock pistols.

The other thing to be aware of is that - when compared to the original stamped extractors - the new molded extractors are nowhere near as dimensionally correct. (Which is, 'Why' polishing them, 'down to size' appears to help.)
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:33   #543
ken grant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: middle ga.
Posts: 1,301
Dec. 2009 Gen.3 19.
Polished extractor and made ejections worse.
Removed small amount from extractor step(stop), no change at all.

Replaced 336 ejector with 20374 and things got better but still not right (about where I was before doing anything)

replaced polished extractor with a non-polished one (MIM) and things are great now even with my light reloads.

Last edited by ken grant; 05-07-2012 at 09:33..
ken grant is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:42   #544
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 ken grant View Post
Dec. 2009 Gen.3 19.

Polished extractor and made ejections worse. Removed small amount from extractor step(stop), no change at all.

Replaced 336 ejector with 20374 and things got better but still not right (about where I was before doing anything) Replaced polished extractor with a non-polished one (MIM) and things are great now even with my light reloads.
Are these comments about a 3rd generation G-19 with a, 'born on' date of Dec. 2009? If so, something's very wrong. I'm wondering? Did you check the original extractor claw for the, 'reverse angle' mentioned in this thread? Did you examine the extractor cut in the slide to make sure it wasn't slightly oversized?

The results you've obtained are odd. Without handling the pistol it's next to impossible to understand, 'Why'?
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:04   #545
Made in Austria
Senior Member
 
Made in Austria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,730
I had ejection issues with my 23 gen4's till I replaced the extractors with different numbered OEM (MiM) extractors, they still eject perfect, but I don't know why. All I know is that I don't like extractors with a # "3" on it.

Last edited by Made in Austria; 05-07-2012 at 10:05..
Made in Austria is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:55   #546
ken grant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: middle ga.
Posts: 1,301
[QUOTE=Arc Angel;18938489]Are these comments about a 3rd generation G-19 with a, 'born on' date of Dec. 2009? If so, something's very wrong. I'm wondering? Did you check the original extractor claw for the, 'reverse angle' mentioned in this thread? Did you examine the extractor cut in the slide to make sure it wasn't slightly oversized?

The results you've obtained are odd. Without handling the pistol it's next to impossible to understand, 'Why'?[/QUOTE

Full story somewhere back in this thread.
Do as you suggested for others

"Read The Full Thread"
ken grant is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 15:45   #547
jorgedos
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6
Declaring victory over Glock Gen4 26!!

I have followed this thread for some time and felt obliged to report my experience as the insight gained here led me on the path to victory (so far, but lots of rounds downrange since the fix.)
My Glock Gen4 26 developed extraction problems and ejection problems after about 40 rounds. My Glock 19 (bought in 1992) has YET to have any malfunctions. I was really disappointed but really liked the little 26 so I kept it hoping Apex would come up with a fix like they did for the S&W's.
(I did not send it back to Glock due to my unacceptable experience with them and a Glock 36 that would not feed any sort of hollow points.)
This thread got me on the right track. Here is what I did:
1. Put in the new model ejector.
2. Filed the 'fitting pad' on the extractor (the one by the claw) to the point where the claw almost touches the case. (This is about 1/2 the thickness of the pad in my case. Use a safe-sided square swiss cut file like you use to square 1911 hammer hooks. Brownell's)
3. Replaced factory extractor plunger with White Sound HRED.

I have fired over two hundred rounds (mostly 124 grain reloads and factory Speer 124) now with perfect function using left hand, right hand, both hands, upside down, running plates, slow fire, you name it I tried it. Ejection is at 4 o'clock and they all land about 6 feet out and within a 2 foot circle. The 26 now has the most consistent ejection pattern of all of my semi-autos!

This worked for me. I hope it will work for others having problems.
Perfection at last!!

G2
jorgedos is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 17:49   #548
Apprentice
Senior Member
 
Apprentice's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: North GA,USA
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Made in Austria View Post
I wish it were that easy to just change to a lighter recoil spring. People try this all the time with no good results. I have tried American eagle 115gr and the 124gr's, Winchester PDX1 self defence ammo and others when I first got my g19 gen4 and got no good results out of it as well.

I agree, hot or even +p ammo lets the slide ciycle faster but with less momentum. You can archive the same thing with a heavier bullet because it remains longer in the barrel which causes a higher preasure build up between the bullet and the breech face which transfers more kinetic energy/more momentum to the slide.

The problem lies either in the extraction mechanism, or the barrels in some guns are too hard to unlock. Everytime I rack the slide on an empty g19 gen4 (not mine) I am like, wow that slide is pretty hard to pull back. I mean it's not that hard to overcome the RSA tension, I mean the unlocking of the barrel. You already pull and pull but nothing moves and then all of a sudden BAM, the barrel finaly goes down into the locking block. This could eat up most of your recoil energy, the slide loses most of its momentum and/or the chamber kicks the spent shell casing out of it's "good" position on the breech face which then fails to hit the ejector in the right spot because the barrel moves down too fast due to the tension build up in the unlocking process. Not sure though.
Yes. Why is that? Has to do with the bump on the trigger bar yes? Another related variable towards tolerance stack?
__________________
When people are driven like cattle/
and slaughtered in screaming herds/
Remember we told you to to kill those/
Who change the plain meaning of words/
Myanmar-Shave.. (Haakon Dahl)
Apprentice is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 20:23   #549
zero9046
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9
Took my gun to the range again with the 30274 ejector and the lone wolf extractor. Shot a bit of Blazer (just to confirm that it is WEAK) and that was still all back at my head, Remington Green Box (115gr) and that was hit or miss, no pun intended, and WWB. Out of the three the WWB was the best, with only a few stray rounds back at my head, though my results from tonight might be tainted by the fact that the guy in the stall next to me was shooting a Glock 23 and rounds were literally flying up, over the stall, and onto my head. I didn't realize what was happening at first, so the brass to the face count may actually be less that what I though. Also, I know at least once or twice brass bounced back at me from the partitions because the range I went to is set up like a closet, so that may have affected things as well.

I guess the next step is to try polishing the extractor, though I have NO experience in doing that kind of thing whatsoever, so I'm a bit reluctant to do so. I have a 13# RSA on the way from glockmeister...just ordered it to see what would happen...figured I could always order the lightest one first, see if it fixed my issues, and if it did and the recoil was a bit much, try the 15# RSA. I know it is money I shouldn't have to spend and that I should probably just send the gun on in to glock, but I kind of like tinkering so I'll give one or two RSA's a try before I give up and call Glock.

I have some more Speer Lawman on the way, so we will see how that shoots as well with the new extractor. As I keep saying, I REALLY like how I shoot with this gun, so I'm determined to get this issue fixed.
zero9046 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 14:01   #550
brickboy240
Senior Member
 
brickboy240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 3,481
If the problem IS the recoil spring assembly....would that apply to recently made 3rd gen G19s, too?

I have a 4-4-12 made 3rd gen G19 that started out with no ejection problems but they cropped up like mad at around 800 rounds and now at around 1000....I get hit with brass quite often.

Why would Glock change the RSA on the 3rd gen guns too? I can see the RSA being a culprit on the 4th gen guns and I applaud those that thought this through and found a cure but does anybody know of they DID change the RSAs on 3rd gen G19s/17s when the 4th gen guns came out?

- brickboy240
__________________
Our founders would be shooting by now!
brickboy240 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 17:47   #551
az larry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 130
I mentioned in bother thread what worked for me. Late Gen 3 Glock 19 "sprinkler" ejection. Solution was to swap out an old trigger housing with an old ejector. Works properly now, ejecting solidly 4:00. Next was same issue with a new Gen 3 17L. Same "sprinkler" ejection. Put in a Lone Wolf extractor and tried it briefly today. All rounds ejected properly but I only had time to shoot 10 rounds. I have a Gen 4 trigger housing with the 30274 ejector coming in. This weekend I am going to shoot the 17L a lot and if it is still fine the new housing will go in the outs box. If it starts having problems I'll try swaying out the ejector.

The sad thing is that 2 totally different solutions seem to be working for 2 different guns. I want to buy a G34 and after all this I'll be looking for an old Gen 3, maybe 09 vintage. I don't want a Gen 4 because of parts commonality or lack thereof. I have read where folks think it's an RSA issue but this just gives me a headache.

Smyrna, we have a problem

Last edited by az larry; 05-09-2012 at 17:48..
az larry is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 19:00   #552
153
Senior Member
 
153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 233
az larry,

I'm a bit confused as the which parts you're swapping around.

In the 19 you put in an older ejector, and in the 17 a Lone Wolf extractor?

Last edited by 153; 05-09-2012 at 19:00..
153 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 19:57   #553
az larry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 130
Yes sorry, it's a confusing situation. The G19 got an old trigger housing with an old ejector. I didn't mess with the extractor. The 17L got the Lone Wolf extractor and bearing. I shot several mags through the 19 and it seems to e fixed. Again, I only had time to shoot 10 rounds through the 17L today, but I always got at least 2 out of 17 in the face, so I need to run several mags through it. Ammo was Magtech 115gr ball. My carry load in the 19 is Federal 115gr +P+ and I run 147gr HST in the 17L, but the problems manifest more in the cheap plinking ammo.

I was tempted to put some Hirtinberger I have through it just to see the brass fly but I don't think high pressure subgun ammo is the answer

I'll have definitive info this weekend. I plan on running at least 100 rounds of ball through both the 19 and 17L. I will report back what I find out. I'll have the 30275 ejector if I need it by then for the 17L.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 153 View Post
az larry,

I'm a bit confused as the which parts you're swapping around.

In the 19 you put in an older ejector, and in the 17 a Lone Wolf extractor?
az larry is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 05:10   #554
153
Senior Member
 
153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 233
Thanks Larry!
153 is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 13:46   #555
az larry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 130
Read on another Forum the the guy from Apex says all these fixes are bandaids and all stem from the ejection port being high. This jives with other threads that state slides seem out of spec.

I know this, the G34 I will end up buying will have a S/N that is M or lower, preferably H, K or L. I just need to find one old enough not to have to fix! Hell of a note as my late father in law used to say.
az larry is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 15:30   #556
153
Senior Member
 
153's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 233
Sorry, but I don't buy the theory that the ejection port is "out of spec" at all.

If erratic ejection with Glocks is a late Gen 3/Gen 4 issue and previous editions worked fine, how could it be the ejection port size, heck later extractors have been "opened" with the five degree back cut on the extractor hook. Besides, none of my Glock brass is dented like I get from my 1911 pistols.

I doubt it's the extractor hook, since this basic design has been used on pistols since the 1930's, and there are just too many examples of the Glock style extractor that work perfectly to blame "ee" on a flaw, dimemsional or otherwise on the hook.

Same goes for the ejector, while a 336 works fine in older pistols and causes trouble in others. It's just a fixed "stud" that the back of the cartridge case runs into. While a slight bevel here or there could effect where the cartridge case lands, all the ejector really needs to do is "be there".

I believe that the only variables of consequence are spring tension and ammunition. That is where the focus should be. IMHO "ee" in some cases may be induced by the RSA which Glock may have tweaked in order to soften recoil. If it is the RSA, then worn or "bad" springs could induce this problem in older Glocks that previously ran perfect.

I have no trouble believing that "Wallmart" ammo cranked out fast and cheap to sell could be the real culprit. Ammo companies have more secrets than the CIA, and never reveal what powder or how much anything they load up in the ammo we buy. How many shooters have a chronograph? Not many, so most of us rely on what the box says with respect to bullet weight, fps etc. When "Snapple" bottled up some bad brew a few years back the bottle no doubt read "safe and natural", and when a Drive-In Resturant accidentially drops a finger in the chili, the bowl still says "finger licken good"!

"ee" is just too widespread and random to be blamed on some wierd Glock part or an "out of spec" MIM piece. I'm willing to accept that the new RSA plays a role, but most of my money is on ammunition. I don't totally dismiss operator error, as I myself have found ejection to be effected when I shift my grip while shooting a string of rounds.

Glock may have just got too popular for it's own good, and while I will do anything I can to make my "go to" pistol work 100%, I am also confident that no matter what I or anyone else does, Murphy is still standing in the shadows ready to put his finger in the pie.

Last edited by 153; 05-10-2012 at 15:32..
153 is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 15:49   #557
az larry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 130
That doesn't explain what happened with my Gen 3 Glock 19. I had the sprinkler head ejection using Magtech 115 gr ball. At the range, I swaped the trigger housing from an early Gen 3 gun that I had in a spare parts box. Same gun, same ammo, same shooter and the gun ejected fine after that. I also have 2 other P series G19s that don't have this issue.

The ejection port issue was mentioned by Randy Lee who owns Apex. He's a pretty savvy guy. His thread post is on M4C if you want to look for it. I won't link it here out of respect for the board owners.

As mentioned, after changing the extractor in my 17L, it seems to be fine but I need to put more than 10 measly rounds through it to make sure.

Again, all this was done with Magtech 115 grain but the 17L also did this with Lawman 147 ball as well. So far I have not touched the RSA. The G19 I have is way too new to have a spring issue unless the spring is defective. The only aftermarket parts on any of these 2 guns is the LW extractor that may have fixed the 17L and night sights.

Sure ammo may have a roll but I really don't think it's the deal here. I think Glock started skimping in the late Gen 3s and that's what we are seeing. Just my opinion.
az larry is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 16:07   #558
brickboy240
Senior Member
 
brickboy240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 3,481
Was the RSA changed on the recently made 3rd gen Glock 9mms?

If so...why? There was no design changes that warranted a RSA change as there were on the 4th gen guns.
__________________
Our founders would be shooting by now!
brickboy240 is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 17:33   #559
dusty_dragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 645
went to the range today with my early 2-pin gen.3 G19 and saw a fellow shooter with a brand new gen. 4 G19 (date of production 04/12). i watched him shoot and after the first couple of rds. we had a little chitchat 'bout our glocks.

from his first 5 rds he got 3 right to the head. he has a dipped MiM LCI extractor and a "30274" ejector.
he used 4 different magtech / CBC types of ammo, 95gr/115gr/124gr/147gr and another brand (don't know which one exactly) with 124gr.
all 5 types of ammo made absolutely know difference, he always got 2-3 from 5 rds right to his forehead, ejection in general very weak.
the man was a real bear, very strong and his grip on the gun was like a vise. we changed guns for a couple of rds. and with my G19 he had no brass-to-head-prob at all, with his gun i got 4 from 10 rds to my head and cheek.
my early gen. 3 G19 has non-dipped, non-LCI inv. cast extractor plus non-LCI SLB and the old "336" ejector, all factory installed and OEM parts
i just suggested he should change the extractor to a .40S&W one, but i'm not sure it'll help, 'cause he already had the new "30274" ejector installed.
dusty_dragon is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 17:38   #560
Made in Austria
Senior Member
 
Made in Austria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,730
I don't buy the "too high" ejection port story either. Just another band aid fix to cut it down like he did. It also weakens the slide in that area.
Made in Austria 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 22:42.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,215
238 Members
977 Guests

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