Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by 3/4Flap, Feb 19, 2012.
Dude, seriously....this stuff is beyond easy. If you screw it up, a new extractor is like $5.
I can't see what effect stoning/polishing the extractor/frame contact has.
With a case in the pistol, the extractor doesn't contact the frame surface at the stop point.
Even with the barrel dropped down, the case stills holds the extractor off the frame..
At least that is what my pistols do. The only time the frame stops the extractor is with no case in place.
Glocks USED to be one of the most reliable guns around.
GLock's reliability has gone & left no forwarding address.
They'll never talk. That's like expecting a drug company to explain why their drug killed so many patients.
Mine (I have 11) all seem to be OK.
I shot another 300 rounds yesterday with the same 17 I used last time around with the "old" extractor. I swapped the "new" one back, after I cleaned it up. 200 rounds of reloads, 4 cases to the head. 100 rounds of factory WWB, 0 cases to the head. This time around, the reloads did seem to eject a little better, but that not always a true indicator. Sometimes I only get a few, another time, I get a bunch. I swear it depends on the brass.
It allows more movement of the extractor, and more positive contact with the case. Current GLOCK pistols seem to have issues with the way the slides and extractors are made, so it helps with ejection to work the contact area.
I think youre missing Kens point. When there is a case present, the point where you say to remove material on the extractor, cant contact the slide, as the case keeps it away from it.
Right....when the extractor is properly sized and properly functioning
But if the spec is far out enough, if that contact point is too far out, the extractor is never really making proper contact during the firing cycle. The point is that the current extractors (or possibly the slide milling) seem to be really out of spec.
The only way I see to increase positive extractor contact with the case is to use a stronger plunger spring or use an old non-LCI springloaded bearing which has a thicker head than the LCI bearing. Even then you will most likely have to cut the tail off the bearing so it will not bottom out on the plunger.
Another way is to re-work the hook on the extractor itself but I don't think anyone will try that.
My pistols seem to have properly fitting extractors and only my 19 & 26 gives me the crazy ejections.
My 19 is from Dec.2009 and has the dip extractor but my 26 is from 2005 and has the non-dip extractor.
I put 2 new non-dip LCI extractors in both but they made no difference.
If what youre saying is right, and the extractor and/or slide were that far out of spec, then the outer edge of the extractor would not be flush with the slide when the case wasnt present.
All my Glocks extractors (with LCI) sit flush when the case isnt present, including the ones that seem to have an issue (with my reloads). Put a case under the extractor, and the LCI sticks out, because the case lifts it off its resting point on the slide.
Reading this thread, gently stoning the hook is what was done by Dave, if I read it correctly.
Question? Do your extractors fall right out of your slides, or do they require force to come out?
It's impossible for me to determine if stoning the contact point actually helps, but worst case scenario is it makes no difference. It could be that stoning that contact point works in some way that's not entirely obvious.
It could also be, that stoning that contact point in some way allows the extractor's gripping point to actually be closer to the breech face, and in that way helping to hold the spent casing longer/tighter for better ejection. I'll take my GEN3 G17C apart later this evening to take a closer look, as it's been hitting me in the head with cases the last few times I've shot. FYI my G17C is at least 3-4 years old.
Easy or not was not the question... It is beyond my comfort level.
Writing a C++ program to determine the sum of all prime numbers under 2 billion is easy, but I am pretty sure that it is outside most people's comfort level.
I am not a gunsmith, nor a "garage gunsmith", nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
EDIT: Let me put it this way, I have detail stripped my glock and have held the extractor in my hand... I know that I cannot work to the level of detail required to get this done properly--my hands just aren't that steady.
Stoning the contact point will let the extractor move closer to the C/L of the breech face but with a case in place even with the barrel dropped to it's lowest point, the case still keeps the contact points from touching at all.
Obviously, this fix seems to be helping some, I just havent seen any real difference with the couple of extractors Ive tried it with mine.
Im still seeing the problem with my reloads, and still so far, none at all with factory. That still leads me to believe it might be the brass issue, but who knows. Now if I was having the problem with factory, Id probably have a different opinion.
Ill keep watching this and the other threads with interest, and keep fiddling. Hey, I wonder what would happen if I just left it out all together. Think it would work like a P7?
what part exactly is thicker with the older non-LCI extractor? what do you mean with "thicker head"
you mean to cut of a little bit of the plastic tail of the non-LCI spring loaded bearing to give the spring more way to get compressed, instead of the extractor depressor plunger hitting the tail of the spring loaded bearing when it has still a long tail, right?
#1---- The spring loaded bearing head is thicker on the ones for the non-LCI,s
Two different bearings for LCI's & non-LCI's
#2--- It was just an idea on my part. Have not tried it yet.
I did take a look at it and decided that the bearing for the LCI ext. would not push into the recess to let a thicker head fit.
I believe the bearing bottoms out on the plunger.
I will try a non-LCI bearing( thickerhead) that I have on hand to see if it will increase spring pressure on the extractor. I am sure it will bottom out so I will cut just a little off the tail.
thanks for the explanation, ken. still some questions:
with "thicker" you mean the diameter of the plastic bearing is larger, or that it is longer than the LCI bearing?
if wider in diameter:
is the channel in the slide for the thicker non-LCI bearing also wider in diameter? otherwise a bearing with larger diameter (thicker) won't fit the channel of the plunger, spring etc., right?
can the non-LCI and also the LCI extractor be used with the same bearing, spring and plunger vice versa, although diffferent (thicker) bearings exist?
are the plunger and the spring the same with LCI and non-LCI extractor and just the bearing is different, or are the plunger and spring also different?
#2----- not according to Glock. different bearings for each.
#3----- Same plunger and spring, different bearings
roger that, thanks a lot, buddy
can you figure out what sense the older, longer bearing will make with the same spring and plunger used on both versions?
I figured the thicker(longer) head would put just a little more spring pressure on the plunger which would lead to more pressure on the extractor to engage the empty case.
As the bearing with the thinner head will not depress enough in the slide to accept a thicker head, I think the bearing bottoms out on the plunger.
As I think the thicker head bearing will do the same, I would take a little off the tail of the bearing.
As i have not tried this, I am only guessing but it does make sense to my eyes.