close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Want Your Ejection Problems Solved? Listen to Dave.

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by 3/4Flap, Feb 19, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. di11igaf

    di11igaf ibew

    440
    1
    Jun 25, 2012
    Possibility -since a few of us have tried a few different extractors, with the problem persisting, could the port the extractor sits in be machined too large towards the back rather than the rear of the extractor being too small. I have one problematic glock out of the few I've owned over the years and its pretty bad, I just find it unlikely I have gotten two out of spec extractors, but its possible. If I still had my gen two 19 or my 34 (which both worked flawlessly), I'd try those extractors, EDP's and SLB, but stupidly I sold them before I acquired my 03/12 test fired 19.
    Also my current 19 is the only glock I've owned that dents the cases towards the mouth
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
  2. Arc Angel

    Arc Angel Deus Vult!

    6,920
    6
    Sep 20, 2003
    Penn's Woods
    I don’t like my answer, either! :supergrin:

    (But, this is because reality, sometimes, hurts; and I’ve got a nice chunk of my retirement income tied up in an, admittedly operable, but less than 100% functional, Glock Model 19(RTF2).

    In my opinion: The only way that Apex Tactical is going to be able to successfully address the Glock extractor problem is by offering Glock owners an oversized extractor that can be custom-fitted into each problem pistol. (Another reason, ‘Why’ the Glock factory is not too keen on really getting into this!) ;)

    Now be careful! I ruined a $23.00 dollar extractor by filing off too much metal from the, ‘step limiters’. Yes, a very slight decrease in the height of the front step limiter WILL improve ejection; however, what you have to watch is that cartridge rims continue to slide underneath your extractor claw as they come up out of the magazine.

    (If you screw up and remove too much metal you’ll have no way of knowing if your, ‘improvement’ is, also, forcing the extractor claw to jump over cartridge rims as they are chambered - OK!)

    Yes, that’s correct. Because the extractor won’t be able to change position as much, the thicker that area of the extractor is, the fewer extraction problems you’re going to have

    Now, you’ve got me wondering whether or not that, ‘extractor pivot pin hole’ at the back of the slide cutout is deep enough? (Or, whether or not the slide cutout, itself, is deep enough too?) ‘Why’ do I say this? Because I don’t imagine you’re extractor claws are grabbing deeply enough; AND, this would explain the problem you’re, also, having with extracted brass dribbling down your magazine well.

    ‘Mitigate’ the problem as I’ve been able to do with my own problematic G-19? Yes. Eliminate it? I don’t think so.

    All three of my Glock pistols will flip hand-extracted brass to the side. I’ve already mentioned, ‘Why’ I think you’re having this problem. (Which I will admit is exacerbated by the fact that we’re discussing very small fractions of an inch - a few thousandths, in fact.)

    Personally, I think many - if not all - of these recent extraction/ejection problems are, ‘cured’ (Read: alleviated) by one simple change: Doing something, anything, that causes the extractor claw to take a deeper bite. A deeper bite on the case rim causes less of an adverse effect from the extractor changing positions from shot-to-shot.

    English, you are now one of the few Glock Talkers whom I’ve ever seen admit to an actual problem with G-36’s. Personally I think Evan Marshall, ‘hit the nail smack on the head’ when he stated that MANY of the G-36 frames - and, in particular, the upper section of their magazine wells - were oversized from front-to-back. (Sometimes when it’s late at night, and I’m lying in bed listening to the wind in the trees outside, I wonder to myself, ‘Whatever happened to all those G-36’s with their oversized magazine wells and feed problems?’) ;)

    TG, while I respect your opinion, I’ve watched my own G-19 extractor, ‘torque’ its claw off case rims. Sometimes the shift is straight down; and, when that happens, it’s, ‘BTF time’. The only thing a different (shovel-nosed) ejector is going to do is catch a dropping case head and give it more of a push to the side - That’s it!

    :headscratch: Huh?

    I think you're trying too hard! How does removing one of the two principal ejection components help to analyze the problem? In order for ejection to succeed both the extractor AND the ejector must be present. Removing either one of them proves nothing. (Even straight blowback actions have some sort of an ejector - ALL of them!)

    :thumbsup: Bingo!

    I don’t have one G-19 to compare with another; but this is the one thing I’ve been thinking about; (and suspect is happening) but I’ve no way to test for it. All I’m able to offer is a, ‘working hypothesis’: I suspect that the slide extractor cutouts WERE very slightly enlarged at the time the new (and clearly oversized) MIM extractors were introduced. If this proves to be correct (and I hope I’m wrong!) then a lot of us are going to be sooo …… screwed! Then, only other oversized extractors that can be custom-fitted to each problem pistol would be able to successfully alleviate this problem.

    I’ve begun calling around to find one of the original #1 or #2 MIM extractors. The trick to fitting them is to work primarily at the front of the extractor, and immediately behind the claw. In my opinion this is the only area of, ‘the flats’ that should be ever so slightly reduced.
     


  3. FiremanJim

    FiremanJim Gold Member

    298
    4
    Dec 3, 2006
    Florida
    got my new 30274 ejector and non-mim extractor from Glock today,slapped them in and gun ejects like a dream,used the same ammo I have been using for last 1000 rounds or so to keep things consistant
     
  4. nraman

    nraman

    2,452
    435
    Dec 9, 2002
    Did you get a chance to try the G27 extractor?
     
  5. Pathfinder20

    Pathfinder20

    54
    0
    Aug 27, 2011
    FiremanJim please give info about the extractor. Wanting to make sure I get the correct part.

    Thanks,

    Pathfinder20
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  6. ken grant

    ken grant

    1,807
    233
    Apr 3, 2004
    middle ga.

    me also!!!
     
  7. pag23

    pag23

    2,058
    553
    Jul 28, 2008
    Eastern PA
    Well I had some ejection issues on my Jun X 2012 Gen 17 Gen 4. It came with the dipped extractor and 30274 ejector. I used 124 & 115 AE with some issuesm then called Glock and got new non dipped extractor... this made the problem worse with ejection, brass to face and slide not locking back. I did shoot 5 different boxes of ammo (4 115 grain & 1 124 grain), about 20 rounds per box. No issues with 147 SXT though. I swapped out the ejector for a 336 and I noticed just trying it manually with snap caps that the ejection was WAY BETTER... I plan to go to the range some point this week and see what happens...
     
  8. The Apex extractor is out now.

    ...problem is most likely solved. You all can stop beating your heads against the wall now.

    Apex...doing the job that Glock just will not do! LOL

    -brickboy240
     
  9. nraman

    nraman

    2,452
    435
    Dec 9, 2002
    I hope we get some reports soon.
     
  10. Fire_Medic

    Fire_Medic Polymer Butcher CLM

    8,097
    12
    May 19, 2008
    The Gunshine State
    FYI- Aside from the extractor, Apex is also on some pistols reworking the ejection port to help with the erratic ejection.
     
  11. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    You know, when you don't change your design for 30 years or so you tend to lose all those designers who understand how to do so. The engineers that remain are production engineers the ones who steadily improve the production process and the bottom line. When these engineers make small changes to the design to fit with their production requirements they don't really understand the significance of those changes. Eventually they make disastrous mistakes and don't know how to fix them. The consequences are entirely predictable. Amongst other things, they run around like headless chickens doing things that seem as though they might work and claiming the problem is not their fault. It isn't that Glock won't fix the problem but that Glock, as presently orgnized, can't fix the problem because they don't have the people with the skills and knowledge to do so.

    English
     
  12. s64woody

    s64woody

    22
    0
    Jan 7, 2009
    There is a product that might be used to build up the thickness of the rear of the extractor, for experimentation only. Metal Set is an epoxy product with metal powder in it. Once set it can be worked like metal, and you could remove material to experiment with different tolerances. Just a thought.
     
  13. tbc

    tbc

    103
    6
    Aug 20, 2012
    Kalifornia
    You nailed it!!!!




    Sent from my iPhone 6 :D
     
  14. nraman

    nraman

    2,452
    435
    Dec 9, 2002
    I agree with you but in this case they have an original design that worked. If they cannot figure it out, they can undo the "improvements" and fix it that way.
    Having said that, there was a time when I had BTF problems back in the 80s I think with a Gen 1 G17. That particular gun was fixed with the use of more powerful ammo.
    My current Gen 4 pistols work well.
     
  15. pag23

    pag23

    2,058
    553
    Jul 28, 2008
    Eastern PA
    Installed the 336 ejector with the non dipped extractor and it appears to have solve my ejection issues. Did have one come back at me with Federal champion 115 Walmart ammo but no issues with 115 and 124 AE, Remington or winchester.

    I will take it on another range trip next week and see what happens.
     
  16. Slug71

    Slug71

    4,499
    10
    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
  17. nraman

    nraman

    2,452
    435
    Dec 9, 2002
    It looks like the old style to me.
     
  18. Call 1-9-1-1

    Call 1-9-1-1

    8
    0
    Nov 18, 2009

    There's no 30275 ejector. 30275 is the factory part number
    for the whole housing which includes the 30274 ejector.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.