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 02-20-2012, 13:44   #41
Aquagear
Senior Member
 
Aquagear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sparks Nv.
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Nowlin View Post
Agreed. But removing enough metal to get better and more complete contact with the case head and adding a slightly stronger spring should.
Dave I think you are right on this. The extractor needs to hold the casing firmly against the breach face in order for it to contact the ejector correctly. Before I did the work on mine if you placed an empty case against the breach face it would start to slide off at an angle the on ejector side. If the contact area on the rim is always changing the ejection pattern will be all over the place. Better rim contact and a firmer spring should help consistency.
Aquagear is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 16:43   #42
diamondd2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 728
Are heavier/stronger springs available?
diamondd2 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 17:00   #43
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 245
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together? I got out my G27, which ejects perfectly and my G30SF that is doing better. I took them both apart and placed a round of the proper caliber under the claw of each ejector and examined them both very closely with the stronger of my 2 pairs of reading glasses and a bright flashlight. Then I once again removed the extractor from the G30SF and did a bit more polishing and put it back together. I loaded 5 rounds in a magazine and went outside (Ilive in the country on 50 acres). I fired the 5 rounds and they all ejected into a very small area to my right rear. Yippee, they didn't go over my head like last time. Over my head without contacting me is an improvement. Going to the right rear instead, is even more of an improvement. The most honest advice I can give any of you is, examine a gun which ejects perfectly under bright light and with even a small amount of magnification if possible. Then do the same thing with the gun which is giving trouble. Very carefully notice any differences in the way the extractor contacts the case head and then do whatever is necessary to make the problem pistol contact the casehead in the same manner as the pistol which gives no problems. Once this achieved, I would expect your problems to be gone. This kind of practice should be done carefully with hand tools. Should you do this properly you will begin to have an appreciation for what a real gunsmith does and why his work isn't free.

Last edited by Dave Nowlin; 02-20-2012 at 17:02..
Dave Nowlin is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 17:03   #44
Pathfinder20
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 55
I have not touched the extractor yet. I took the slide off my Glock 19 Gen 3 Serial #SCZ### and removed the recoil spring and the barrel. Now I have placed a empty case in under the extractor up to where the brass mark is on the breachface. Looking through the slide and using the underside of a lampshade with the light on, the claw is holding the brass in place. The extractor claw is about even with the angle part of the brass.
Is this how the extractor is on the guns that are working?
Pathfinder20 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 17:15   #45
Duck of Death
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 4,461
I took some off the #1 position, looking at the wear pattern indicated it was hitting the frame and needed to be filed down. Also smoothed the flat sides, my G27 is ejecting nicely.
__________________
I am nobody, nobody's perfect--therefore, I am perfect.

I think, therefore I am, I think?

Last edited by Duck of Death; 03-07-2012 at 14:11..
Duck of Death is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 17:23   #46
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 245
It is hard to paint a word picture that can properly explain what must be done. That is why after thinking about this a bit I decided to compare a gun which wasn't working perfectly with one which was. I wanted to see for myself what differences I could see. Once I had done this I proceeded with caution. I am more than pleased with the results. Any time you take on a project like this you must first ask yourself a couple of things (1) how handy am I with delicate hand tools? (2) how mechanically inclined am I? (3) Am I confident enough in my own ability to take general instructions, fit them to my situation and work out the details?
You must understand that any time you work on your own firearm, you assume all of the liability. In projects such as this no one can give you precise instructions that will work with every pistol. I'm afraid that the quality control variations with these pistols don't allow precise instructions. These parts aren't precisely made on CNC machines to super close tolerances. If that info makes you uncomfortable working on your own pistol. Then don't do it.
Dave Nowlin is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 19:33   #47
cciman
Senior Member
 
cciman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 2,469
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.
cciman is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 05:38   #48
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by cciman View Post
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.
But first it needs to be doing approximately what it should be doing. If the extractor is not gripping the case well enough to stop the ejector pulling it out of engagement, it can't do that.

If the ejection pattern is significantly erratic there IS a fault with the pistol which higher power cartridges will not solve and which could cause a stoppage at a critical moment.

English
English is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:03   #49
3/4Flap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Idaho Nowhere near a McDonald's
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by cciman View Post
Any change in the physics of the extraction will affect the trajectory of the expended case.

Certainly polishing or changing the contact areas of the extractor can be one answer. But it may just be a simple problem with the type of ammo you generally shoot with-- and not with higher potency SD ammo.

Other options: change to a different rate recoil spring, or change ejector (40 ejector will work for both 9mm and 40).

Wear a hat at the range, keep your shirt buttoned, and carry +p ammo.

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.
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:08   #50
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 34,869
Wow - you guys sure put a lot of effort into this. Somebody order a 15 lb ISMI recoil spring from Midway or Brownells and let us know how surprisingly easy it is to fix your ejection problems with no permanent gun mods.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 02-21-2012 at 09:02..
Bren is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 08:37   #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 08:37.. Reason: spelling
Terry C. is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:03   #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 09:06..
Mike_P is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:16   #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, 09:17   #54
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 245
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, 09:30   #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, 09:44   #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, 10:13   #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 10:19..
3/4Flap is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:22   #58
MNBud
Senior Member
 
MNBud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: suburb of Mpls. Mn.
Posts: 708
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, 10:38   #59
William Springer
Junior Member
 
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, 11:06   #60
Dave Nowlin
Fisher of Men
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Savannah, Tn.
Posts: 245
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 11:08..
Dave Nowlin 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 20:25.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,520
411 Members
1,109 Guests

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