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 02-21-2012, 07:37   #51
Terry C.
in the swamp
 
Terry C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Waycross, GA USA
Posts: 22
I ran my extractor across a hard Arkansas stone top & bottom, checking the fit after each (very) light pass.

This is all I did and my ejection issues have gone away.

This a later Gen3 G19 that came with the new extractor used on the Gen4. It was very rough, and would drag on the sides of the extractor groove. It moved freely after stoning.

Last edited by Terry C.; 02-21-2012 at 07:37.. Reason: spelling
Terry C. is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:03   #52
Mike_P
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 52
I've read the thread... I'm contemplating doing this since I have extra extractors... BUT, and I'm only saying this out of curiousity, not because I have any reason not to believe this will work...

Has anyone run their gun after making the changes through more than 4-5 rounds? That's all I'm seeing in this thread and frankly, I don't think that's a big enough test group to verify if the changes are consistantly guarunteed. I want to believe!

Last edited by Mike_P; 02-21-2012 at 08:06..
Mike_P is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:16   #53
NucPhysics
Senior Member
 
NucPhysics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 134
First, I want want to say it is impressive what you are doing to resolve the ejection problems with your Glocks.

But what does that say about Glock that their owners are having to resort to gunsmithing their own guns to get them to work better.

Impressed with you guys, not with Glock right now.
NucPhysics is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:17   #54
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 220
mike, my G30SF would have put 5 cases in 5 different places before and probably 2 of the 5 would have been my face and head. Now the 5 will be in an area you could cover with a bushel basket that is to my right and slightly rearward. What more do I need. I'm convinced and don't need to shoot 200 more rounds to satisfy me. I'm sharing what I have learned to help othewrs. Based on what I'm now experiencing, I no longer believe I need to change the extractor spring. This makes things even simpler. The trick is to alter the travel of the extractor IF it doesn't swing in enough to firmly grip the case head. Then polish the surfaces involved in such a way as to maximize the contact area on the case head. This allows consistent extraction. When the case head is held in exactly the same position each time the rearward movement of the slide will cause the ejector to strike the case head in exactly the same place. When this happens consistent ejection will result. I'm trying to remember the old adage. It goes something like doing the same thing the same way each time and expecting different results is the height of insanity. What we have here is the inverse. We are trying to do the same thing in a DIFFERENT way each time and expecting consistent results.
Dave Nowlin is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:30   #55
Mike_P
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Nowlin View Post
mike, my G30SF would have put 5 cases in 5 different places before and probably 2 of the 5 would have been my face and head. Now the 5 will be in an area you could cover with a bushel basket that is to my right and slightly rearward. What more do I need. I'm convinced and don't need to shoot 200 more rounds to satisfy me. I'm sharing what I have learned to help othewrs. Based on what I'm now experiencing, I no longer believe I need to change the extractor spring. This makes things even simpler. The trick is to alter the travel of the extractor IF it doesn't swing in enough to firmly grip the case head. Then polish the surfaces involved in such a way as to maximize the contact area on the case head. This allows consistent extraction. When the case head is held in exactly the same position each time the rearward movement of the slide will cause the ejector to strike the case head in exactly the same place. When this happens consistent ejection will result. I'm trying to remember the old adage. It goes something like doing the same thing the same way each time and expecting different results is the height of insanity. What we have here is the inverse. We are trying to do the same thing in a DIFFERENT way each time and expecting consistent results.
Thanks for the info! My hesitation in doing this without a large group being shot is that, each of my 4 glocks are different. While one may hit me in the head with brass in 2 out of 100 rounds, another may not do it except for 1 in 200. Another possibly 2 every 50. I suppose I am trying to determine if I should just do it to all of them or just the ones suffering the worst.

If it sounds as good as you all are making it out, I'll just run all of my extractors over some stones and see where it goes from there.

Ironically enough, a buddy of mine as well as myself have also had this issue in M&P's. Found it funny that a copy of the glock design also suffered from this issue.
Mike_P is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:44   #56
bentbiker
NRA Member
 
bentbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry C. View Post
I ran my extractor across a hard Arkansas stone top & bottom, checking the fit after each (very) light pass.

This is all I did and my ejection issues have gone away.
Thanks, Terry. This fix has worked for many (not all) over the last 18 mos, and it is good to know it still works. From 3/4flap's post, this was part of his work as well.
bentbiker is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:13   #57
3/4Flap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Idaho Nowhere near a McDonald's
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_P View Post
I've read the thread... I'm contemplating doing this since I have extra extractors... BUT, and I'm only saying this out of curiousity, not because I have any reason not to believe this will work...

Has anyone run their gun after making the changes through more than 4-5 rounds? That's all I'm seeing in this thread and frankly, I don't think that's a big enough test group to verify if the changes are consistantly guarunteed. I want to believe!
Read my thread here. Yesterday's work.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403289

About 150 rounds.

It is not perfect, but is much better.

Left hand shooting ejection patterns ARE perfect. Right hand shooting ejection patterns still need some improvement.

I can now live with the gun, but I think I can do better yet with some more work on the extractor. As I said earlier, I was VERY careful not to take too much off the first time.

I also now have isolated the ejection problems in this pistol to right hand shooting. I'm left handed but will be doing my further post-modification testing of ejection patterns by shooting right handed.

Frankly, as I've said from the beginning, the current "parts swapping" mentality of most shooters today has exacerbated this problem in simply relying on Glock to spin our a cure. I and others have had to or otherwise fixed many a gun problem without waiting for the manufacturer to fix it. I literally, except for the my G19 {so far...} have not bought a single new gun in 20 year that did not have a wart or two that needed fixing. Only a few have been sent back to the makers.

Should they make it right? Well of course, but I am not waiting around for them to do it. I just got my first Glocks last year.

One was a total lemon and Glock replaced the gun for me. The G17 was perfect...for a while. Then this. The G19 is so far going well. But am I overjoyed with Glock?

No. They are no darn different than any other gun maker.

Do I HATE Glock?

No. They make as good a product as some others and better than others yet. I like my Glocks...now.

40 years ago when most fellows made their living standing in front of a machine of some sort, DIY was common gun practice. Maybe not so much any more.

Really, this is not hard work...

Last edited by 3/4Flap; 02-21-2012 at 09:19..
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:22   #58
MNBud
Senior Member
 
MNBud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: suburb of Mpls. Mn.
Posts: 704
I'm with an early poster,it may have been bent biker, I thought this problem had been mostly resolved by POLISHING the top and bottom surfaces of the extractor.You could be taking away years of reliability down the road by removing material that is a built in stop for the extractor. Many years as a machinist has shown me that one step at a time is best for trouble shooting.I would highly recommend polishing top and bottom surfaces and then go out and shoot your gun and report back.
__________________
Just because you know you're paranoid doesn't mean someones not out to get you.

Sub club #622
Certified Glock armorer
MNBud is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:38   #59
William Springer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 12
Good Call Guys

I also suffered with erratic ejection on my GEN 4 G23 and while doing a detail strip noticed the chrome and copper undercoating at the tip of the extractor pin was being scraped off by milling burrs at the mouth of the pin bore also the extractor itself was very rough with casting lines and uneven wear marks. So With some ceramic files I dressed all the roughness out and polished the sides of the extractor chamfered the throat of the pin bore mouth ever so slightly polished the pin tip and tuned up the pin bore with a 17Cal. wire brush, greased lightly and now it will throw all brass about 5ft. out at 3:00 O'Clock into my baseball cap. It seams that a few of you want your guns to all work like a Les Baer hand tunned 1911 that cost an extra $3,000.00 out of the box. but only pay for the priced right glocks. It has been my experience that all firearms regardless of shape, size ,action design, long gun, revolver, pistol,etc will at some point require some tunning so its really a matter of do you want to pay Les baer prices for a hand tunned glock that at some point in its life will still need some tuning because of wear or except a lesser refined product and learn to tune them as required your self, or pay your local gun smith to do it for you
William Springer is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:06   #60
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 220
Do the Gen 1 & 2 extractors wear out and have to be replaced often? I doubt that they did. Removing metal in order to slightly reshape our extractors so that they work the way they are supposed to shouldn't be a problem. When you try filing on the extractor you will quickly discover it is a hardened part. The brass case head on the other hand is a relatively soft part. When the two work against each other, which do you expect to show wear? Even if I have to change extractors every 20,000 rounds, it would be a small price to pay for reliable, consistent ejection. Maybe I'm just older tha a lot of you. I don't know. In the past I have had 1911s from Para-Ord, Colt & Kimber in sizes from Officers Model to Government model with no ejection problems. I've had a Sig 220 & 229 with no ejection problems. I've had metal frame S&Ws in9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W and .45 a.c.p. and none of them had ejection problems. I've also had two Springfield XDs with no ejection problems. I've never been hit in the face or head with brass from any weapon I've owned until the G30SF. It shouldn't and won't continue to throw brass into my face. In fact I have fixed it now. Regardless of what some say, when you get hit in the face enough your brain will begin reacting to this. Sort of like a flinch but instead, you will be slightly ducking your head. Your brain will attempt to protect you even if you don't try and protect yourself. It's sort of like when your eye blinks to keep a bug from getting in it. The brain registers the presence of the bug and makes your eye blink before you realize the bug is there. When the brass is hitting you in the face, your sub-concious mind is going to work to protect you whether you like it or not. Now try and do your best shooting with that in the back of your mind.

Last edited by Dave Nowlin; 02-21-2012 at 10:08..
Dave Nowlin is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:31   #61
3/4Flap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Idaho Nowhere near a McDonald's
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Nowlin View Post
Do the Gen 1 & 2 extractors wear out and have to be replaced often? I doubt that they did. Removing metal in order to slightly reshape our extractors so that they work the way they are supposed to shouldn't be a problem. When you try filing on the extractor you will quickly discover it is a hardened part. The brass case head on the other hand is a relatively soft part. When the two work against each other, which do you expect to show wear? Even if I have to change extractors every 20,000 rounds, it would be a small price to pay for reliable, consistent ejection. Maybe I'm just older tha a lot of you. I don't know. In the past I have had 1911s from Para-Ord, Colt & Kimber in sizes from Officers Model to Government model with no ejection problems. I've had a Sig 220 & 229 with no ejection problems. I've had metal frame S&Ws in9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W and .45 a.c.p. and none of them had ejection problems. I've also had two Springfield XDs with no ejection problems. I've never been hit in the face or head with brass from any weapon I've owned until the G30SF. It shouldn't and won't continue to throw brass into my face. In fact I have fixed it now. Regardless of what some say, when you get hit in the face enough your brain will begin reacting to this. Sort of like a flinch but instead, you will be slightly ducking your head. Your brain will attempt to protect you even if you don't try and protect yourself. It's sort of like when your eye blinks to keep a bug from getting in it. The brain registers the presence of the bug and makes your eye blink before you realize the bug is there. When the brass is hitting you in the face, your sub-concious mind is going to work to protect you whether you like it or not. Now try and do your best shooting with that in the back of your mind.
Hey, first things first;

I've been misspelling Dave's handle.

Can somebody fix that??

Sorry!!!

Next, I 100% agree with Dave and William Springer makes good points.

As for wear, look, does anyone know if any damage or excessive wear is being induced with bad extractors now? How does relieving tight spots and improving grip on the case inject added likelihood of failure?

Obviously if somebody grinds down the hook the extractor could be compromised, but that is NOT what we are talking about.
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:55   #62
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jw38 View Post
Just finished my 19 and took it into our back yard to shoot 5 quick rounds. According to my Wife, all 5 cases were in about the same consistent line to the right side. I'm Happy. No more embarrassment at the Range because I would get my football helment and gogles out. Now off to my 27. Thanks for the info!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny about the football helmet, but so true.
ithaca_deerslayer is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 11:01   #63
AA#5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by NucPhysics View Post
First, I want want to say it is impressive what you are doing to resolve the ejection problems with your Glocks.

But what does that say about Glock that their owners are having to resort to gunsmithing their own guns to get them to work better.

Impressed with you guys, not with Glock right now.
Amazing, isn't it? In order to remain passionate Glock fans, some people lose their common sense.
AA#5 is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 12:47   #64
ken grant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: middle ga.
Posts: 1,244
OK you guys looking at how the case contacts the extractor remember with the case centered on the breechface is not the way it is when the barrel drops down.
When the ejector hits the case it is much lower on the breechface and that is the place to check extractor fit to the case.
ken grant is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 12:57   #65
ak103k
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 705
Not saying that there arent some issues with the different extractors, but I am wondering how much of this is also ammo, and specifically, "case" related.

99% of what I shoot are my reloads. The more I load and shoot the same brass, the worse this problem seems to get. When I shoot factory loaded ammo, or reloaded brass thats once fired, or only been loaded a couple of times, I dont seem to have the problem.

As an example, when I got back into 9mm Glocks, I initially bought a 17 and a 26. I had a bunch of once fired 9mm brass, so I loaded up 3000 rounds of it have been rotating through that same lot of brass ever since. Other than the usual replacements for lost or failing brass, its been the same stuff all along for a number of years now.

My 17 started to bean me on the head more and more as time wore on, and I was thinking it was the extractor, so I replaced it and its spring. The round count at that point was probably around 10-15000 rounds.

At first, it seemed like it stopped with the erratic ejection, but soon after, even with the new extractor installed, it was right back to it. At this point, its probably got somewhere around 30000 through it, and I still get beaned pretty regular.

Now when I shoot factory ammo, like a box of Federal or Winchester, it never seems to miss a beat.

Makes me think that a lot of this is what we shoot out of the gun, more than it is the gun itself, or at least, with mine it seems that way.
ak103k is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 13:52   #66
cciman
Senior Member
 
cciman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 2,299
No I am just suggesting to change the physics-- how you do it is up to you. Everyone seems to be complaining about "ejection' without quantifying what that is.... seems to revolve around getting hit in the head/face. This is not necessarily a gun problem-- if you change the ammo choice you will change the trajectory, and the rate of 'ejection' issues. Worrying about getting hit in the head 2/100 times is over obsessing. If anyone ever did a study on ammo load, I would bet 2% variance is within spec especially for practice ammo, even worse for homemade, depending on the individual and the equipment used.

If you change the recoil spring (heavier or lighter, I did not say which- but to lighten perceived recoil go heavier, not by much but it will affect trajectory path) you will also change the ejection trajectory.

Comparing Gen3 to Gen 4 is comparing green apples to red oranges, or the LT1 to the LS1. The Gen4's have a different recoil rod and spring, as well as other features (extractors, ejectors), it will behave differently-- all for the price of reducing recoil when using non-practice ammo, and having adjustable grips with nubs. You can closely turn a gen 4 into a Gen 3 by using a rod adapter bushing, and using the gen3 RSA. Enjoy this mental bation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3/4Flap View Post
Basically; No.

Use a different gun for example. Once upon a time I had a large collection of Finnish Mosin-Nagant rifles. The extractor on the M-N can depending on manufacture seat slightly too far forward for a tight grip of the case. I had one that was not functioning properly in this regard. However, if you just yank the bolt back ridiculously hard, the case will come out and be ejected. However, if you worked the bolt slowly or "normally" the case ...might...fall off the extractor.

What you are recommending in effect is that. Yank the bolt back super hard.

That is no solution.

A 9x19 should function properly with all normal ammo. I've demonstrated numerous time that 115/1100 IS normal ammo in the 9x19. So is 124/1075. That is historically the loads that were very common in 9x19 manufacture. To suggest that "shooting heavier ammo" is the fix for a 9x19 today should not be the path followed.

For one thing, the old Gen 3's did just fine thank you will all ammo from lighter loads to +P. They and the Gen 4's should now, too.
cciman is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 13:58   #67
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 220
The stuff that was beating me in the head and face was new hardball. Actually if the rotation of the extractor around the post is limited then things will get worse as the case head experiences wear. Now if you relieved things a few thousandths, it would swing in farther and continue to maintain a good grip on your reloads. I am a reloader and don't often shoot ammo I don't reload but someone gave me 4 boxes of hardball in .45 a.c.p. in a gun trade. They threw it in, so I took it.
Dave Nowlin is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 14:35   #68
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by cciman View Post
No I am just suggesting to change the physics-- how you do it is up to you. Everyone seems to be complaining about "ejection' without quantifying what that is.... seems to revolve around getting hit in the head/face. This is not necessarily a gun problem-- if you change the ammo choice you will change the trajectory, and the rate of 'ejection' issues. Worrying about getting hit in the head 2/100 times is over obsessing. . .
2 in 100 is a problem. 2 in 50 is a problem. 2 in 10 is a problem. Empties to the face is a problem. It is a gun problem. Not an ammo problem.

If this happened with another gun, lots of people would have dropped it and gotten a different brand. The Glock is worth fixing. Lots of the people with this gun problem have other Glocks that don't do it. Have other guns that don't do it. The gun that does it is a problem gun. But hopefully it can be fixed.

Hot brass to your own eyes is not the best way to start a self-defense situation
ithaca_deerslayer is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 15:43   #69
3/4Flap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Idaho Nowhere near a McDonald's
Posts: 1,091
First, I am not "passionate" about anything other than God my Savior Jesus Christ, my family and my country.

"Glock" is a darn tool that's broke and I don't feel like going thru the motions of selling it in order to buy a Smith M&P that has some other cockamamey problem. I am a magnet for gun warts.

So a fix that takes me ten minutes seems to be a no brainer if it actually results in "Glock Perfection".

Second, Glocks of the past were well-known to eject all their fired cases in a hat thrown on the ground. They still do but now the shooter has to wear the hat.

CCI: all of what you say is true, but look, if the gun can be made to work with all ammo, what's not to love?

As for the point about reloaded ammo, well, yes, in any automatic gun mechanism the tendency is to experience more and more failures to function as cases are reloaded. Case dimensions DO change and case heads expand over time. Try reloading for a Remington 742...you get three or four loadings and the gun jams. I hate those guns!

Semiauto cases WILL have a "life expectancy" not necessarily due to actual case failure, but due to dimensional changes of the case head and the inability of the sizing die to reach the entire head due to the position of the case holder. Nature of the beast.

As for the "philosophy" of discussion that these things tend to foster, well, I really don't care whether Glock should have, didn't, might, is worse or better for not making the perfect pistol in the world. What I care about is getting my guns to work 100%. If they don't do it, I will, or find a way, or get rid of the gun.

I don't shoot philosophy, I shoot guns.

Last edited by 3/4Flap; 02-21-2012 at 15:47..
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 16:14   #70
ak103k
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 705
Quote:
Semiauto cases WILL have a "life expectancy" not necessarily due to actual case failure, but due to dimensional changes of the case head and the inability of the sizing die to reach the entire head due to the position of the case holder.
I shoot mine until they "fail", which usually means the neck splits/cracks. "Life expectancy" is usually literally "years" worth of loading for most of them too. In the case of this lot of 9mm Im shooting now, means a rotation of around 8 weeks give or take for the 3000 Im currently loading and Ive been loading them a little over three years now. Im just now starting to get a split case showing up here and there.

Never had any issues with the case not being properly sized though, and thats across most auto calibers from .32 to .45.



I just found the last extractor I removed and cleaned it up a bit according to whats been posted here. Ill take it out tomorrow and see if theres any difference.
ak103k is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 17:17   #71
dusty_dragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 645
sorry for my , perhaps dumb, question, but with polishin the top and bottom part of the extractor as one first soolution to the problem, which parts of the extractor exactly do you mean with "top" and "bottom"?

i suppose you mean the top and bottom edge on the long side of the extractor that fit in the longish groove in the slide, right?

and another question:
did you try also polishing at the inside of the claw of the extractor?
dusty_dragon is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 17:53   #72
3/4Flap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Idaho Nowhere near a McDonald's
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by ak103k View Post
I just found the last extractor I removed and cleaned it up a bit according to whats been posted here. Ill take it out tomorrow and see if theres any difference.
Will you be shooting the "problem" brass?

THAT would be very interesting to read about.

Please post your results!
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 18:01   #73
ak103k
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 705
Yup. Same brass. Ill let you know.
ak103k is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 20:28   #74
captdreifus
aSun666
 
captdreifus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1,588
Good info here.
__________________
"I dont believe in an eye for an eye..I believe in two eyes for an eye" Bas Rutten
captdreifus is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 21:59   #75
Terry C.
in the swamp
 
Terry C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Waycross, GA USA
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dusty_dragon View Post
sorry for my , perhaps dumb, question, but with polishin the top and bottom part of the extractor as one first soolution to the problem, which parts of the extractor exactly do you mean with "top" and "bottom"?

i suppose you mean the top and bottom edge on the long side of the extractor that fit in the longish groove in the slide, right?

and another question:
did you try also polishing at the inside of the claw of the extractor?
Maybe "top" and "bottom" are not technically correct terms, but that's what I call them.

As you are looking at the extractor in its groove, that's how I define "top" and "bottom."

In the pic in post #23, you are looking at what I call the bottom of the extractor.

.

Last edited by Terry C.; 02-22-2012 at 05:48.. Reason: Ooops, late nite flu-bug post.
Terry C. 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 06:16.



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


Users Currently Online: 992
292 Members
700 Guests

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