View Single Post
Old 09-27-2012, 12:51   #13
dhgeyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBS View Post
Excellent work, hummm what could you do with a 40” Gearhead?
So you did not notice any difference at all in ejection patterns?
Thank you. From a fellow creator I really appreciate that. When I was 13 my father brought home (had delivered of course) an excellent South Bend toolroom lathe. He taught me how to use it. Shortly thereafter I made my first muzzle loading zip gun from scratch. I took a machine shop course years later. I'd love to have any kind of metal lathe, but with the basement pretty much full of woodworking equipment there isn't any more room for one.

I did not notice any improvement in ejection pattern. But with all the other aftermarket/homemade parts in the system it's not all that bad anymore. I could get all scientific and start mixing different combinations to see what is weak and what works. Maybe sometime, not right away.

I am convinced that the real problem is that 17 degree slant in the extractor claw. Think about it. The extractor is only under maximum tension when the barrel is all the way up and the slide is in battery. Once you link down, because of that angle, the extractor has moved in a little and is not under full tension. And that is the point where extraction/ejection happens, not when the barrel is up. And the rather weak spring setup doesn't help. I think they made a fundamental mistake angling the extractor claw like that. It is not needed for the LCI extractor concept. My Kahr has an LCI extractor and the claw is vertical. And the Kahr passes the 1911 test whereas the Glock does not.

What I really wonder is if the Apex folks have corrected that blunder. Anyone take a picture of the front of one showing the claw angle?

Last edited by dhgeyer; 09-27-2012 at 12:52..
dhgeyer is offline   Reply With Quote