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 08-14-2012, 17:50   #926
XPerties
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Owasso OK
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Sir View Post
I hate to claim ignorance so early in a conversation but these are the first guns I've owned. I am looking through the manual schematic at the extractor and I have looked at googled images but without breaking the gun down further then the four component parts; frame, slide, barrel and recoil spring - I do not know how to make what I believe is the extractor "play freely." Additionally, nothing free falls out of the slide when disassembled? Sorry for ignorance.

This is a great video that shows a full break down of a glock, although it may not be your model from my understanding or at least for my 19 and 26 it is the same exact steps:

XPerties is offline  
Old 08-14-2012, 19:23   #927
Silent Sir
Member
 
Silent Sir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 45
Thanks for the link XPerties. Very informative. Though I'm not ready to break it down to that level yet it is helpful for me in becoming more familiar with the parts. It's a little easier watching that than the schematic in the Glock user guide. Thanks.
Silent Sir is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 15:22   #928
Pathfinder20
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 55
Does the Glock 38 have ejection problems?
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
Pathfinder20 is offline  
Old 08-21-2012, 01:19   #929
RockyMtnG20
NRA Life Member
 
RockyMtnG20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 93
Send a message via AIM to RockyMtnG20
08/21/2012 Update
Called Glock to check for warranty parts eligibility on a buddy's Gen 4 G22 w/ test date prior to 10/10/2011 & it did need the part & is being shipped. I asked if the 10/10/2011 date was good info & it is. As far as they are concerned if a gen 4 Glock has a test date 10/10/2011 or after it should not have any known problems.

The only part they are sending is the recoil spring complete assembly. No extractor or ejector. At the end of the recoil spring where it touches the barrel the old spring had a "0" at 9 o'clock, & a "1" at 3 o'clock. The new spring has both those #'s plus a "4" at 6 o'clock.

I watched a video showing how to strip down the slide & it said DO NOT OIL the parts in the slide because it can cause problems of stuff sticking to the oil & jamming the action. When I pulled apart my buddy's Gen 4 G22 it had a little oil in there that I wiped out.
__________________
FOR SALE: Beeman P3 .177 scoped air pistol.

Last edited by RockyMtnG20; 08-26-2012 at 18:48.. Reason: Recoil spring technical info update
RockyMtnG20 is offline  
Old 08-23-2012, 11:57   #930
judgecrater
Senior Member
 
judgecrater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAGunner View Post
Apex Tactical is full of firearms genius, they should develop their own weapons platforms. Will they be launching an extractor for the .40 and .45 Glocks as well?
I spoke to Randy at APEX. They are only working on the 9mm Glock problem. No fix for 45s planned. My G21sf can be fussy with target ammo.
judgecrater is offline  
Old 08-29-2012, 15:03   #931
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,189
Question for the experts

When Glock went to the LCI extractor, they also replaced the loaded bearing with a shorter one.
It seems to me that a shorter bearing might prevent the extractor from getting the original tension. I compared the LCI and non LCI extractors and I don't see a difference except a little less mass on the LCI.
Does anybody know why Glock decided that they needed to replace the bearing when they went to the LCI?
I don't have an ejection or extraction problem with my glocks but if I did I would consider trying the old bearing see if it makes any difference.
What do you think?
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 00:32   #932
DBR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vermont
Posts: 544
When Glock went to the LCI they also changed the geometry of the extractor hook. The original hook had the surface of the hook that the side of the case rim rides on parallel to the side of the breech face. The LCI hook changed this and has this surface at an angle to the side of the breech face. As the cartridge rides up the breech face it pushes the extractor progressively farther out away from the slide.

I can only guess, but I think this was to cause the extractor to protrude further from the side of the slide and make the "indicator" more prominent. The force on the extractor spring was probably reduced with the shorter bearing to reduce the downward force on the case rim cased by the angle on the extractor hook. This change only contributes to the erratic ejection problems IMHO.

If you put a straight edge against the surface of the extractor that the edge of the case rim rides on you will see that the original (non LCI) extractor is parallel to the the outside of the extractor. The LCI extractor has an angle to the outside of the extractor. The LCI extractor is not the same geometry as the original extractor.

Last edited by DBR; 08-30-2012 at 00:39..
DBR is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 10:53   #933
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBR View Post
When Glock went to the LCI they also changed the geometry of the extractor hook. The original hook had the surface of the hook that the side of the case rim rides on parallel to the side of the breech face. The LCI hook changed this and has this surface at an angle to the side of the breech face. As the cartridge rides up the breech face it pushes the extractor progressively farther out away from the slide.

I can only guess, but I think this was to cause the extractor to protrude further from the side of the slide and make the "indicator" more prominent. The force on the extractor spring was probably reduced with the shorter bearing to reduce the downward force on the case rim cased by the angle on the extractor hook. This change only contributes to the erratic ejection problems IMHO.

If you put a straight edge against the surface of the extractor that the edge of the case rim rides on you will see that the original (non LCI) extractor is parallel to the the outside of the extractor. The LCI extractor has an angle to the outside of the extractor. The LCI extractor is not the same geometry as the original extractor.
Great info, I'll do some checking first opportunity.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ
nraman is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 15:06   #934
oldsarg4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3
I'm a new member and just purchased a 19 gen 4 two weeks ago. Had 4 or 5 kick backs to cap and shoulder in 50 rounds of speer 115. I then ran a box of speer 124 with the same results.
Glock suggested having a Glock armorer contact them and they would send a new ejector that would fix the problem. Are they just blowing smoke or does it really fix the problem.
oldsarg4 is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 15:09   #935
oldsarg4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3
Casing kick back

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsarg4 View Post
I'm a new member and just purchased a 19 gen 4 two weeks ago. Had 4 or 5 kick backs to cap and shoulder in 50 rounds of speer 115. I then ran a box of speer 124 with the same results.
Glock suggested having a Glock armorer contact them and they would send a new ejector that would fix the problem. Are they just blowing smoke or does it really fix the problem.
I have been reading the other messages on polishing the extractor so was just wondering if a different ejector would do anything.
oldsarg4 is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 15:43   #936
dusty_dragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 645
in most cases (not in all) the new ejector did the job or at least is an improvement.

in some cases the polishing of "the step" on the extractor was the key, some also tried non-LCI-extractors and SLBs, or just a different production run of LCI-extractors.
in other cases several things together did the job and some also changed the RSAs

it's a pitty, but it seems that there is no general remedy for all glocks, you'll gotta check your individual glock yourself, but a new ejector is the first step to start with
dusty_dragon is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 13:59   #937
TattooedGlock
NRA LIFE MEMBER
 
TattooedGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South Texas
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglefrq View Post
I have a Gen 4 G19 brass to the head and a Gen 3 G26 with zero problems.

I swapped the extractors and the G26 still had zero issues and the G19 still had some brass to the head. It appears in my case, the extractor is not the issue.

My thinking by switching them the 26 would develop problems and the 19 would be solved, but that didn't happen.
The Gen 4 19 per Glock brass to head has to do with the ejector and new spring system being to stiff when shooting lower power loads. The spring should break in after a few thousands rounds. Mine has the new ejector and shoots all ammo great except the Federal 115 which it throws all the rounds straight back even after 350 rounds. Glock says this is normal and will go away and to stick with 124 or hotter rounds.
__________________
NRA Life Member
If you're a gun owner and not a member, you fail.

GSSF Life Member
1911 Club and Big Dawg Member

Last edited by TattooedGlock; 09-03-2012 at 14:01..
TattooedGlock is offline  
Old 09-04-2012, 16:15   #938
judgecrater
Senior Member
 
judgecrater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 154
other brands

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oak45 View Post
Hi guys. I also just registered here because I was thinking about purchasing a Glock 19 as my first handgun. Seems like the ejection issues I have been reading about have not been solved yet.

Pathfinder20 what other brand would you recommend? I hear people like H&K but it is a big price difference, is sig sauer a better option? I'm not familiar with pricing.
I purchased an M&P45 and it has been flawless. Base price $506. Fired a friends M&P9mm fullsize and it was outstanding also.
judgecrater is offline  
Old 09-05-2012, 04:17   #939
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by TattooedGlock View Post
The Gen 4 19 per Glock brass to head has to do with the ejector and new spring system being to stiff when shooting lower power loads. The spring should break in after a few thousands rounds. Mine has the new ejector and shoots all ammo great except the Federal 115 which it throws all the rounds straight back even after 350 rounds. Glock says this is normal and will go away and to stick with 124 or hotter rounds.
I think Glock are telling you Porkie Pies. Does that mean something in American English? It is Cockney rhyming slang for lies! I don't think it is acceptably normal and I don't think it will go away after a few thousand rounds. Even if it did, what is the dollar cost and time cost to shoot a few thousand rounds of Fed 115?

The fact that it does not work with that particular round suggests that the rim profile is not the same as the other rounds you have fired and so the EXTRACTOR is not working as it should to handle all rim profile variants.

oldsarg4 ; Yes they are blowing smoke - sometimes it works but mostly it doesn't.

To whoever very sensibly experimented with swapping extractors between a pistol that worked and one that didn't and concluded that it wasn't the extractor since the problem stayed with the pistol: I suggest that the problem is a mater of fit between slide and extractor. In this case the slide is at fault (too tight sideways or the movement limiter step is too high) but it is easier to modify the extractor than to modify the slide. This is really bad of Glock but it is what it is! The bigger problem is that now there will be incompatibility between different extractors and different slides.

English

Last edited by English; 09-05-2012 at 04:17..
English is offline  
Old 09-05-2012, 11:08   #940
nraman
Senior Member
 
nraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
I suggest that the problem is a mater of fit between slide and extractor. In this case the slide is at fault (too tight sideways or the movement limiter step is too high) but it is easier to modify the extractor than to modify the slide.

English
If I had the problem I would remove the extractor and temporarily build up the step by gluing a thin shim (.001-.003"?)and testing it. If that didn't work I'd buy an extra extractor and start removing material from the step .001" at a time and checking the results.
If a person has more than on Glock including one that doesn't misbehave, he could do some comparative measurement of the extractor slot of the slides to see if there is a difference.
The best way to troubleshoot is with two identical guns (many members have more than one) like two G19s so that you can swap the ejector housings, slides, extractors, ejectors, extractor springs, whatever it takes till there are results.
__________________
Μολών λαβέ

Last edited by nraman; 09-06-2012 at 11:13..
nraman is offline  
Old 09-06-2012, 02:46   #941
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 English View Post
....... To whoever very sensibly experimented with swapping extractors between a pistol that worked and one that didn't and concluded that it wasn't the extractor since the problem stayed with the pistol: I suggest that the problem is a mater of fit between slide and extractor. In this case the slide is at fault (too tight sideways or the movement limiter step is too high) but it is easier to modify the extractor than to modify the slide. This is really bad of Glock but it is what it is! The bigger problem is that now there will be incompatibility between different extractors and different slides.

English
The experiments I've been conducting over the past two weeks with my, 'on again/off again' G-19, and a series of different extractors from both Lone Wolf and Glock OEM would indicate that you suggest correctly. (I just don't know whether or not I want to spend more money buying more Glock extractors to play with?)
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 09-06-2012, 13:30   #942
vtducrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 896
I called Glock today, and the tech insisted that the erratic ejection of my gen3 G19 is related to the ejector. He asked me to find a local Glock armorer, who will then order a replacement ejector for me. I guess it's worth a try since it's free. The other option he presented was to ship the gun to the factory on my own dime.
vtducrider is offline  
Old 09-06-2012, 13:44   #943
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtducrider View Post
I called Glock today, and the tech insisted that the erratic ejection of my gen3 G19 is related to the ejector. He asked me to find a local Glock armorer, who will then order a replacement ejector for me. I guess it's worth a try since it's free. The other option he presented was to ship the gun to the factory on my own dime.
The simpler and cheaper thing, since the armorer must charge something, it to take the trigger unit out and send that Glock in a padded envelope at normal pastage rates.

English
English is offline  
Old 09-07-2012, 07:21   #944
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 vtducrider View Post
I called Glock today, and the tech insisted that the erratic ejection of my gen3 G19 is related to the ejector. He asked me to find a local Glock armorer, who will then order a replacement ejector for me. I guess it's worth a try since it's free. The other option he presented was to ship the gun to the factory on my own dime.
It ain't the ejector. These new, 'shovel-nosed ejectors' are primarily intended to compensate for the bad extractors Glock, GmbH has been producing. (I'm, now, sure of it!) If you've owned a Glock for any significant period of time then you should already know that:

GLOCK TECH SUPPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, OFTEN WRONG!

I absolutely positively assure you that the ejection problems on many - but, as usual, NOT all - recently manufactured Glock pistols are primarily caused by the crappy extractors Glock, GmbH has been producing. Your problems with faulty ejection have little or nothing to do with your ejector. You're dealing with an extractor problem - plain and simple.



PS: Reread English's first post on this page. It accurately addresses the two most common problems with Glock's current line of extractors. (There is, also, a third problem: the size and shape of the extractor claw; but, so far, problems with the claws appear to be the least significant, less common, and influential of these three anomalies.)

AREN'T GLOCK PISTOLS FUN!

Last edited by Arc Angel; 09-07-2012 at 07:37..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 09-07-2012, 11:43   #945
brickboy240
Senior Member
 
brickboy240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 3,481
The PPQ and Caracal are starting to look mighty good right about now!

LOL
__________________
Our founders would be shooting by now!
brickboy240 is offline  
Old 09-07-2012, 13:57   #946
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post

PS: Reread English's first post on this page. It accurately addresses the two most common problems with Glock's current line of extractors. (There is, also, a third problem: the size and shape of the extractor claw; but, so far, problems with the claws appear to be the least significant, less common, and influential of these three anomalies.)

AREN'T GLOCK PISTOLS FUN!
Arc Angel,
It has occured to me that the different shape and particularly the angle of the claw might be no more than compensation for the fact that the extractor is intended to project outwards as a loading indicator and so is angled outwards when a round is chamberes. If that is so then the angle of the claw relative to the frame with a chambered round should remain the same. This is no more than speculation since I don't have one of these PC Glocks.

English

PS I have just re-read my own post and I had not made it clear enough. Appologies for that and thanks for making the effort.

Last edited by English; 09-07-2012 at 13:59..
English is offline  
Old 09-07-2012, 16:10   #947
Southwind
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Southwest Indiana
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
Arc Angel,
It has occured to me that the different shape and particularly the angle of the claw might be no more than compensation for the fact that the extractor is intended to project outwards as a loading indicator and so is angled outwards when a round is chamberes. If that is so then the angle of the claw relative to the frame with a chambered round should remain the same. This is no more than speculation since I don't have one of these PC Glocks.

English

PS I have just re-read my own post and I had not made it clear enough. Appologies for that and thanks for making the effort.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here so this may or may not be relevant. My take on the problem with the angled claw is that the force exerted by the claw on the casing decreases as the barrel carries the casing down after firing. For example, when slowly hand cycling the slide with a spent casing chambered and watching the LCI, the LCI is nearly back to "rest" position as soon as the barrel's top flat (whatever its name is) clears the ejection port. When the brass first clears the barrel, a fairly light tap on the bottom of the gun will drop the casing loose (with no magazine).

IOW, the claw holds best only when a round is chambered. When we need for the claw to hold tightly, the holding force is mostly gone.

My Gen 3 G19 won't eject at all unless a magazine is present. I'm thinking that the extractor is merely dragging the casing over the new round and reaches the ejector with too little authority to serve as a positive "hinge" for the casing.

If this doesn't make any sense, sorry -- I'm learning as I go.

Last edited by Southwind; 09-10-2012 at 09:34.. Reason: Change "extractor" to "ejector" thanks arcangel
Southwind is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 05:44   #948
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwind View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here so this may or may not be relevant. My take on the problem with the angled claw is that the force exerted by the claw on the casing decreases as the barrel carries the casing down after firing. For example, when slowly hand cycling the slide with a spent casing chambered and watching the LCI, the LCI is nearly back to "rest" position as soon as the barrel's top flat (whatever its name is) clears the ejection port. When the brass first clears the barrel, a fairly light tap on the bottom of the gun will drop the casing loose (with no magazine).

IOW, the claw holds best only when a round is chambered. When we need for the claw to hold tightly, the holding force is mostly gone.

My Gen 3 G19 won't eject at all unless a magazine is present. I'm thinking that the extractor is merely dragging the casing over the new round and reaches the extractor with too little authority to serve as a positive "hinge" for the casing.

If this doesn't make any sense, sorry -- I'm learning as I go.
I am not being clear again! My faint excuse is that describing 3D functional objects and actions is difficult , and then it is difficult to read. Let me try first to explain that again and then to explain how these failures are cause and what can be done about them.

When Glock wanted, for marketing reasons, to make the extractor into a loaded chamber indicator they needed it to stick out further from the side of the frame so that it was easy to feel the difference between loaded with the "back" of the extractor sticking out and unloaded with the back of the extractor level with the exterior of the slide. There were two ways to achieve this. One was by adding a lump to the back front end of the extractor. If the lump was relatively short it would appear to have a dip behind it - hence the name. The other would be to lengthen the claw and step end (the "front" of the extractor) so that the back would project by the required amount and then curving the back in where the projection was not needed to produce a dip again. The first option would seem the simplest but the reality is that either side could be dragged wider with equal ease on the existing comuter drawing which would then generate the program to machine the part.

If, for whatever reason, they chose the secod method, they would then discover, or anticipate, a problem with the angle of the claw face. The new design has kept the pivot point in the same place and the back of the extractor gets its extra projection by being rotated further outwards. That rotates the front of the extractor as well, of course, but the change in the angle also applies to the face of the claw which then needs to be "bent" further back to compensate. This should then produce a claw that seems different on the body of the extractor but actually maintains the same relationship to the pivot point as before. If this is so then Glock would have maintained what worked before although it appears different.

Alternatively, the above is rubbish and Glock changed the agle of the extractor claw face because they thought it would make it work better. I can't check on this idea because all my Glocks are now relatively old Gen 3s and I am not, in any case, where they are. (My original Gen 3 G20 was crushed by my gun crazed government!) If the two types could be lined up, one on top of the other so that the pivot points and claw faces were aligned, any difference or lack thereof could be seen. This would not be all that easy in practice because you can't just stick a pin through their pivot points to align one of the critial points.

Apart from that hypothesizing, I am sure that you are right about the need for an effective hinge point as the barrel drops and what you are saying is entirely relevant. It is essential that the extractor maintins a FIRM grip on the case rim all the way until the ejector has rotated the case at least 15 or 20 degrees, and 30 or 40 degrees would be better. This is because ejection requires not just that the case is rotated but is given sideways momentum. This happens when the C of G of the case is rotated about the extractor. If the C of G is, say, at 45 degrees to the extractor then the C of G starts to be given a sideways component as soon as it begins to rotate, PROVIDED THAT THE EXTRACTOR KEEPS HOLD OF IT. Provided that the extractor mainains its grip, even if the ejector only causes 15 degrees of movement, the angular momentum will be converted to more sideways momentum as the case continues to rotate from inertia. That sideways momentum will then carry the case cleanly out of the port when the rotation twists the case out of the grasp of the extractor and all will be well.

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

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

In short, if your pistol drops an empty case, through the magazine well once it is withdrawn from the chamber, with no more than a tap on the frame to encourage it on its way, you must have faulty ejection. How this is fixed all follows in principle from the above.

When a round is not holding the extractor partly open it must not close against the breech face because a loading round has to be able to slide up between its face and the the breechface. This is the purpose of the step on the extractor. It blocks the inward movemnet of the extractor by contact with the slide. If it is blocked too early in its movement, it will prevent the extractor closing enough to grip the rim of the case. This is why most of the fixes for this problem involve shortening that step. Please note that this is shortening and not polishing - which will achieve nothing.

The other principle problem is that excessive friction in the fit of the extractor to the frame is jamming it before it closes enough. This is why the other major component of a fix is to make sure the movement of the extractor in the slide is free and to polish the sides of the extractor until enough roughness or thickness has been removed to provide free movement. Note again. Polishing here is not done with a QTip. You have to remove metal and you need to keep the sides flat and parallel! This is best done with fine grade flatting paper held on a flat surface like plate glass but many kinds of work surface are quite flat enough.

The more subtle problem is the shape and length of the nose of the extractor. This interacts with the varied profiles of different manufacturers' cartridge case rims. If the nose is too long or too thick, its movement inwards will be blocked before it is closed far enough backwards to grip. Before and after the round is chambered, all this means is that the case is pushed out of line with the chamber and so it would seem unimportant. It might be so but it might be that, in the small time that is available before the impact with the ejector, the extractor is chattering and so grips poorly at impact with erratic results. In those case where one manufacturer's rounds work when others fail, or vice versa, I suspect that rim profile variation is the cause. If this is happening you should be able to see movement of the extracto as you slowly chamber of extract a round as the case reaches the point where it passes the stabilisation point provided by the chamber. This is not precisely the point at which the case enters or leaves the chamber since it will be able to wobble a little further in than that.

I do hope all this helps some understand and fix their problem.

English

Last edited by English; 09-08-2012 at 05:47..
English is offline  
Old 09-08-2012, 22:13   #949
RockyMtnG20
NRA Life Member
 
RockyMtnG20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 93
Send a message via AIM to RockyMtnG20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtducrider View Post
I called Glock today, and the tech insisted that the erratic ejection of my gen3 G19 is related to the ejector. He asked me to find a local Glock armorer, who will then order a replacement ejector for me. I guess it's worth a try since it's free. The other option he presented was to ship the gun to the factory on my own dime.
The new updated recoil spring Glock sent didn't cure the erratic ejection problem on my buddy's Gen4 G22 with factory test fire date prior to 10/10/2011 so they told us the same thing: find a Glock Armorer to order the updated parts. When we test fired a newer Gen4 G22 with a test fire date after 10/10/2011 it ejected cheap Federal .40S&W perfectly.

Glock wouldn't send the replacement parts to us saying it was a liability issue. Luckily a friend of ours is a Glock Armorer so he is ordering the following parts per the Glock Tech we talked to:

28927 Trigger Housing, (includes Ejector)
7965 DOT Connector
1899 Extractor
__________________
FOR SALE: Beeman P3 .177 scoped air pistol.

Last edited by RockyMtnG20; 09-08-2012 at 22:20.. Reason: Add more info
RockyMtnG20 is offline  
Old 09-09-2012, 07:02   #950
oldsarg4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3
ejetor problems

Thanks to all the replies on the straight back ejection problems on the Glock 19 gen 4. It appears that it will take some trial and error to get it worked out. Will let you know how it turns out.
Thanks again for all replys.

oldsarg4
oldsarg4 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 01:04.



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


Users Currently Online: 841
186 Members
655 Guests

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