Originally Posted by 9mmmountaineer
Ejection sucks, all kinds of stovepipe's. I've been trying everything to fix it there was some carbon build up that was causing the wear, but I didn't figure it should wear that bad
You have my sympathy! At the moment I'm really annoyed with some of the, 'minor intellects' on this board; but I've, also, been struggling with this problem, myself, for the past 7 or 8 months; and I'm going to try to help you.
My own 3rd generation G-19(RTF2) didn't start smacking me in the head with brass until after I'd passed the 3,200 fired-round mark. Then, increased wear on the original #2 MIM extractor began to take its toll.
So far there's very little that I haven't attempted or tried to do in order to fix this problem. (Including the 100's of dollars that I've, now, thrown into finding a satisfactory solution!)
My best success-to-date comes from (Ready?) using:
1. Either an, 'H.R.E.D' EDP rod & spring,
2. A standard Glock, 'extractor/depressor' plunger with,
3. A new (LCI) spring-loaded bearing and,
4. A new Wolff Gunspring, 'EDP' spring. (Standard Schematic Part #'s 12, 13, & 14)
5. A #30,274, 'drop-nosed' ejector, (Standard Part #23, w/o the (Gen4 trigger housing - Which I didn't need.)
6. The latest version of Glock's, '0 degree/non-LCI' extractor. (Standard Schematic Part #11)
This new, '0 degree/non-LCI' extractor, still, is NOT what it should be, though. Last week I had the privilege of working with a man who's been fixing pistols for almost as long as I've been alive. He took out an older, 'K' prefix serial number, 3rd generation G-19, and compared it to my more recent, and troublesome, 'P' prefix model.
THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD, AND THE NEW EXTRACTORS! THE ONE IS, SIMPLY, NOT EQUAL TO THE OTHER!
My own investigation indicates that most of this extremely annoying problem with Glock's recent extraction and ejection results - not from any excessive wear as much as - from the recent cheaply manufactured, oversized, and very poorly fitting extractor claws. This elderly gunsmith and I did several tests and other close comparisons that proved to my complete satisfaction the above hypothesis is correct.
In my own situation I believe that the, 'sintered metal' of my newer, 'MIM' extractor is too soft to stand up to prolonged hard wear in the same way that the older, better made, machined extractors are able to do. The fit of the respective, 'claws' into the case rims and against the cartridge walls is, also, vastly different! So is the manner in which these different extractors, 'snap' as a spent case is ejected.
I'm sure that Glock, GmbH already knows about all of this too; BUT, as long as worldwide sales remain high, all the factory is going to do is continue to offer expedient, 'Band-Aid' fixes for this VERY REAL PROBLEM. This whole mess could, literally, be solved overnight by simply having the factory return to producing quality-made extractors.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE A NEW, 'DROP-NOSED' EJECTOR (Factory Part #30274 on my G-19) IF THE CARTRIDGE'S CASE HEAD IS ABLE TO REMAIN TIGHTLY HELD AGAINST THE BREECH FACE.
With the proper tension between the case head and the breech face the old (Factory Part) #336 ejector works just fine; and, at the present time, I would describe my, 'P' Series, 3rd generation, G-19(RTF2) as extracting and ejecting brass, at least, 'acceptably'!
It won't, 'wing' brass, flat-out, between 6 and 8 feet in the same way either one of my older G-21's will; but it is throwing brass 2 or 3 feet without any rapid spinning, or severe humpbacked arcing in the same way that it used to (often at my face!)