PDA

View Full Version : Randy's dissertation on erratic ejection and extraction in the Gen 4 Glock 9mm pistol



Randy Lee
11-10-11, 23:47
Hi all,

I first became involved in working on Glock pistols back in 1998. The one thing that I notice after firing the G24,22,19 and 17 pistols, was that although the guns functioned, ejection patterns were wildly inconsistent. Brass was hitting my head, going completely vertical, off to the left, and many just off my right shoulder at about 5:30 if you viewed everything from above the gun (muzzle being the 12:00). I was told that the problem was caused by "limp wristing", projectile dysfunction, low testosterone and a myriad of other reasons that did not sit well with my mind.

In talking with Jeff Gonzales many moons ago, the phenomenon called the horizontal stovepipe also seemed more common in the Glock pistol than other service pistols that we were both familiar with. After having experiencing a few firsthand in G22s and a couple of 9mms, the data was stored away for some 8 or so years as I had sold my Glocks in search of greener pastures.

For the past month, I have been scanning various forums and youtube videos documenting such issues, and people's attempts at resolving the problems they have been experiencing. I was looking for some logical pattern in the "If I change part A, the benefit was always X" Ditto with parts B and C. What I have concluded is that while changing the RSA helped for some, it does not help in all cases. The same is true with replacing just the extractor or just the ejector. In almost all of the videos I watched, the single part replacement provided no improvement (unless the problem was failure to extract, in which case replacing the extractor usually helped).

So what is the root cause of the problem Mr. Randy Fancypants Know-it -all? To put it quite simply, the ejection port horizontal wall is too tall, and the cases are hitting the vertical inside wall instead of being guided out by the exit ramp cut. I will try to explain what I am seeing a bit further down in this post.

This is why just changing the RSA or Extractor or Ejector by themselves only helps in some cases, but not in others. Each gun is different and each shooter is different. So results can vary based upon how an individual absorbs recoil forces as well as manufacturing tolerances for the particular gun. Below are some rules of thumb that can help with diagnosing and isolating a particular problem:

Recoil Spring Assembly(RSA)
As long as the slide will lock to the rear while shooting with your non-dominant hand with moderate to light grip pressure, the RSA is not the cause of erratic ejection, stovepipes or failures to extract. I say this because if there is enough energy to lock the slide to the rear once the last round is fired, there is enough force generated to reliably kick the spent case out of a properly set up ejection port and feed another round when a full magazine is used. This of course implies that the loads being shot are of sufficient quality and power to reliably cycle the pistol. Faster slide velocity rearwards can help ejection by causing a more forceful impact of the case against the ejector tip. But in many of the guns I have inspected, it just meant the brass hits your face harder.

Extractor
The Gen 4 extractors I have seen have a secondary angle on the hook that is not present on the older extractors. My assumption (I have not spoken to any of the engineers at Glock) is that the secondary angle allows for less resistance against the feeding case as it slides up underneath the extractor hook. As the cartridge begins its entrance into the chamber throat, the back of the case must change from a point contact (12:00 position of the case head) to flush and parallel with the breechface. The new extractor angle helps with this aspect, but can lead to other problems during the extraction phase.

As the barrel unlocks and ramps downward it impacts the locking insert in the frame. The barrel essentially bounces. Add this force to the torque forces imparted by the rifling and there can be enough transmitted shock to bump the extractor claw as it tries to pull the spent case from the chamber. The secondary angle on the Gen 4 extractor while making it easier for the case to slip up and under the hook during feeding, now applies force to the case rim by pushing it down and away from the optimal contact point making it easier for the case to slip away from the claw.

The earlier extractor versions and I assume aftermarket extractors have claws that are parallel with the side wall of the breech face. This means that the ejector is nearly always applying a force that is perpendicular to the breech side wall, and at the 3:00 position of the case no matter how low the case travels down the breech face during extraction and ejection.

Ejector
Until recently, the Gen 4 9mms were shipping out with the #336 ejector. I believe the instructors at the Rogers Shooting School found that by altering the ejector position and possibly length, they were able to minimize many of the stoppages. I have heard of others attempting to do the same with mixed results.
The new ejectors that Glock is installing as an in-house service essentially alters the exit angle of the case trajectory. By changing the location and dimensions of the ejector tip, the contact point is now at about 7:00. This makes the ejection angle steeper and will hopefully clear the inner sidewall of the slide that is vertical. If executed correctly, the brass flight path should be roughly a high arc at about 3:00 to the shooter (I don't have one of the guns with the new ejector, so I cannot confirm this).

What is happening in my stock Gen 4???
For the sake of argument, let's say have just pressed the trigger on my Gen 4 box stock new model 19. I am using Winchester White box ammunition. The gun discharges and the bullet leaves the barrel. The barrel unlocks from the slide and bounces against the locking insert. Now, because I am using ammo that I know has a shallower extractor cut, the Gen 4 extractor overrides the case rim for reasons discussed above. Failure to extract leaves me with a double feed. I clear the stoppage and get back to shooting as usual.

I press the trigger again, and the gun discharges. This time the bounce of the barrel does not cause the extractor claw to override the case rim. The case extracts from the chamber and hits the #336 ejector tip. As the slide moves rearward, the front of the case impacts the inner vertical sidewall of the slide. Because of the less that optimal dimensions of the brass, and the secondary angle cut on the extractor, the case is released from the extractor prematurely and is floating in space as the slide moves rearward, and the next round begins to rise in the magazine. The upcoming cartridge contacts the free floating brass and lifts it vertically in the ejection port. The slide has already stopped rearward travel and is now moving forward. Without any other forces acting on the spent case, the slide closes on the hovering brass. The result is a horizontal stovepipe where the case mouth is wedged between the hood of the barrel and the back of the breech face. Tap roll rack and I am back to business as usual.

I press the trigger a few more times, and the gun cycles reliably, but brass hits my left arm, the rim of my hat, over my right shoulder. The last round hits the underside of my hat rim and decisively wedges between my eyebrows and safety glasses. After my well selected curse words and putting the gun down in a safe direction, I dislodge the still sizzling empty case from my glasses to the aroma of burning hair and skin...

Does any of this sound familiar?

Possible solutions?
Our solution is to lower the ejection port, and change the ramp out angle to a 45 degree rather than the steeper factory angle. I designed our barstock extractor and it is in the testing phase.
I also have a prototype ejector.

Magsz donated his problematic Gen 4 19 which I believed he called Satan spawn. Most of our testing has been with Winchester ammunition. The gun was tested before modification and as each new component came online. The lowering of the ejection port was the last operation, as from prior work on competition Glocks I knew would have the greatest impact.

With the lowered ejection port, our extractor and the prototype ejector 400 rounds have been fired without incident, and the ejection is consistent at the 3:00 position regardless of who was shooting the gun.

Today I swapped out the proto ejector and reinstalled the #336 factory part. The result was the same- consistent extraction and ejection being at 3:00 for all three shooters (two left handed shooters and myself) We shot the gun one handed, right and left hands, limp wristed, no pinky support, thumb and middle finger only grip as well as freestyle for 150 rounds.
The brass ejected at 3:00 to the shooter's right side regardless of shooting style or grip strength. NONE, I repeat NONE of the shooters had brass come near their head!

Earlier in this post, I wrote about the accusation of limp wristing being the cause of my problems. I believe that I have confirmed (at least for myself) that it is a fallacy. Properly set up, as long as there is at least 20 pounds behind the gun, a properly designed and executed gun should function, extract and eject without fear of stovepipe or brass hitting the operator.

The downfall of this is that in milling the slide, you void the warranty on your Glock. Ultimately, it is up to you the owner to decide whether it is an acceptable risk.

Until Glock takes a serious look at the ejection port geometry, I fear that problems will plague the Gen 4 guns no matter how many changes to the ejectors and RSAs they make.

Thank you for reading this, and as always, I could be wrong...

-Randy

RFB
11-10-11, 23:59
Sir,

As an old fart still using my gen 1's (17 & 19), are these issues solely relegated to newer models or does it go all the way back to my 1980's versions?

Clint
11-11-11, 00:08
Excellent work Randy.

It all makes good engineering sense.

Seems like some high speed video might be a good tool to help confirm your theory.

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 01:32
Sir,

As an old fart still using my gen 1's (17 & 19), are these issues solely relegated to newer models or does it go all the way back to my 1980's versions?

The erratic ejection was present, but as I recall, the number of stoppages was less. I opted not to buy a Glock in the late 80s because I got hit in the face by a friend's 17...

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 02:17
Excellent work Randy.

It all makes good engineering sense.

Seems like some high speed video might be a good tool to help confirm your theory.

Thank you Clint,
We will try to get a good quality high speed camera and good lighting...

-Randy

JHC
11-11-11, 10:01
Super interesting. And Randy came across the ejection port factor long before Gen 4's came along; which makes sense as all my dozen or so Glocks of Gen's 2,3,4 have displayed some degree of erratic ejection paths while functioning great without stoppage. Some factors of the Gen 4's - maybe SF frame dimensions for and aft may aggravate things. Fascinating.

JHC
11-11-11, 11:09
Randy,
Can you hazard an explanation for Gen 4's that run well for thousands of rounds with original RSA, extractor and ejector with WWB and any old econ grade 115 gr fmj? (we have four like that; 2ea 19s and 2ea 17s).

Heavy Metal
11-11-11, 12:00
Randy,

Something I noticed with my first Gen 3 G-19 is when running drills shooting only one round with no magazine in it, the case would stovepipe, especially shooting weak-handed. With a magazine, sometimes it would leave the case laying on top of the magazine.

Never had a problem strong or two-handed.

It appears though that the presence of a bullet in the magazine assists in ejection and affects the ejection pattern, that the case strikes the round as well as the ejector.

If you are trying to force out a marginal condition, shooting without a magazine might help show it.

C4IGrant
11-11-11, 12:12
Excellent Randy!


C4

Ga Shooter
11-11-11, 13:43
Randy,
Can you hazard an explanation for Gen 4's that run well for thousands of rounds with original RSA, extractor and ejector with WWB and any old econ grade 115 gr fmj? (we have four like that; 2ea 19s and 2ea 17s).

I have that question also. I have 2 very early Gen4 G17 with no problems at all but my recent 19 has had some failure to extract but I only have a few hundred rounds through it.

Are you going to offer this service? If so how much and how much lead time?

Would it void the whole warranty or just the slide?

Great work by the way!! Thanks for your diligence and hard work.

ETA: Why do some of the Gen 4 not show the problems until they have 1-2k through them?

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 15:00
Randy,
Can you hazard an explanation for Gen 4's that run well for thousands of rounds with original RSA, extractor and ejector with WWB and any old econ grade 115 gr fmj? (we have four like that; 2ea 19s and 2ea 17s).
I believe I can. There are tolerance variations from gun to gun, but also in component fabrication. I don't know where Glock is having their extractors manufactured, but from some descriptions, it seems that they may be from differing vendors or at least molds.

I would also speculate that the trigger housings on some guns will locate the ejector height slightly lower than others. This would help with the trajectory of the brass and place impact above the vertical wall of the slide. I have reports (and one sample gun where some of the problems went away by replacing the trigger housing).

-Randy

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 15:24
I have that question also. I have 2 very early Gen4 G17 with no problems at all but my recent 19 has had some failure to extract but I only have a few hundred rounds through it.

Are you going to offer this service? If so how much and how much lead time?

Would it void the whole warranty or just the slide?

Great work by the way!! Thanks for your diligence and hard work.

ETA: Why do some of the Gen 4 not show the problems until they have 1-2k through them?

We will be offering the slide milling and extractor replacement in the near future. I don't have a price yet, but the turn around time should be fairly quick. We are moving to a location where we will have more room and greater machining capabilities. I'm pretty sure that it would be the warranty on the slide that would be voided, however if Glock requires that you send in the whole gun for warranty assessment, they might say it voids their warranty in its entirety.

I think the emergence of the issues later in service life can be attributed to wear on the extractor contact surfaces and perhaps even a "set" of the extractor depressor spring. Although it is comparing apples to oranges, MIM extractors were tried on 1911s, but virtually every manufacturer I know now uses a machined bar stock extractor (with the exception of those variants sold with non 1911 type spring loaded extractors).

All of the MIM extractors I have ever seen show rounded edges of the claw. From experience, the claws that engage the brass need sharp shoulders to prevent the claw from ramping over the case head during extraction. I am old school, so I really prefer a well machined extractor as it is a high stress component...

-Randy

JHC
11-11-11, 15:34
Some conventional wisdom evolved over the past year re extractor fit that went something like this: the extractor should easily slip out when removing it, if it is rather snugly fit it will be trouble.

My good running Gen 4's seem to have a pretty tight fit to thier extractors in this respect. More so than older guns.

Soooo?

alank2
11-11-11, 19:20
I have seen one slide that cracked at the ejection port (3rd gen). The owner is a police officer/competitive shooter and said he had about 175K through the G17 before it happened. Do you think Glock beefed up that part of the slide over time causing this issue? Glock replaced the slide no charge.

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 20:22
I have seen one slide that cracked at the ejection port (3rd gen). The owner is a police officer/competitive shooter and said he had about 175K through the G17 before it happened. Do you think Glock beefed up that part of the slide over time causing this issue? Glock replaced the slide no charge.

It is possible, but I would need samples of both to measure.

One of the unique things about Tenifer and Melonite is that you get an extremely hard surface skin- something like the hard candy coating on an M&M (yes, I am hungry while I type this). At 175K, micro cracks along the harder surface due to impact and shock/vibration can start to form in the areas around the ejection port-and often at the front area of the machined port. There is a good amount of compressive force in the area of the where the front of the barrel/chamber junction contacts the slide's locking surface during the unlocking phase, and then pulling forces as the slide returns to battery contributed by the recoil spring. With the hard surface, I believe the cracks can originate externally and work their way in to the softer core metal.

-Randy

Randy Lee
11-11-11, 22:55
Some conventional wisdom evolved over the past year re extractor fit that went something like this: the extractor should easily slip out when removing it, if it is rather snugly fit it will be trouble.

My good running Gen 4's seem to have a pretty tight fit to thier extractors in this respect. More so than older guns.

Soooo?

There is a range of inward force that is optimal for reliable extraction and cycling of the pistol. Rebating the extractor claw so that the case can travel farther up the breech face before even contacting the hook has never been a successful way of improving performance. I have seen it done on numerous 1911s, and the result was always the same- replacement and proper tensioning.

As the barrel unlocks, it drags the case down the breech face. During this transition, the claw must have consistent side contact with the case rim until the ejector imparts adequate spin to flip the case up and out of the port. I find that the angled claw makes the time of release more variable and prone to skipping over the rim. I believe that somewhere in one of the threads there is a picture of a case that shows a nick where the extractor lost full contact and left the case in the chamber. It is the position of the case at the lowest point of barrel travel that really should dictate where the extractor is snug. On Magsz 19 the brass wanted to pop down and out if an empty case was slid down the breech face.


I am working on a drop in solution, but it is still in the concept phase...

-Randy

uwe1
11-12-11, 10:16
This is an excellent explanation Randy.

I have (hopefully had) a problem Gen3 Glock19 that would stovepipe both vertically and horizonally, in addition to nailing me repeatedly in the head. The malfunctions occurred 2 to 4 times per 200 rounds fired with Federal Champion, WWB, and Blazer Brass.

One of the things I noted, due to the tendency for the newer grayer Glock finish to accept scratch marks, was that the inside of my slide at the ejection area would have numerous (10-20) ding marks per 200 round shooting session.

I tried changing the recoil assembly with no joy. Adding a White Sound Defense HRED only made the rounds hit my head harder. Shaving the ejector down yielded a minor improvement in the ejection pattern, but I was still having stovepipes. For me the LWD extractor did the trick and I've shot the gun over 1000 (almost 2000 now) rounds now without an issue.

Unfortunately, the final product is now a Frankenstein abortion of a Glock19 with a SS guide rod, White Sound Defense HRED, shaved ejector, and LWD extractor. But the gun runs....

BillOH
11-17-11, 18:47
I have seen one slide that cracked at the ejection port (3rd gen). Glock replaced the slide no charge.

I've had 2 Gen 2 G-17's crack down through the ejection port. Glock replaced both slides. Each gun had between 50K and 100K at the time.

All of my Glocks show a brass smear in the middle of the ejection port where brass is hitting during ejection. 3 Gen 2 G-17's, 2 Gen 3 G-17's, a Gen 3 G-19 and a Gen 3 G-26.

Bill N.

YVK
11-20-11, 10:57
Randy, can you provide an explanation why .40 Gen4s run better than 9 mm counterparts? My understanding that the very first batches of 40s had some issues but those were rectified and they run very well now, with ATF contract being an indirect confirmation. What is different between 40 and 9 mm cartridges that 40 is less affected by all those dimensional issues you had described above?

Clint
11-20-11, 13:38
What is different between 40 and 9 mm cartridges that 40 is less affected by all those dimensional issues you had described above?

The 40 S&W has a much thicker and deeper rim than the 9mm.

I have no direct knowledge on the platform, but I suspect the extractors have different dimensions.

Randy Lee
11-21-11, 17:58
Randy, can you provide an explanation why .40 Gen4s run better than 9 mm counterparts? My understanding that the very first batches of 40s had some issues but those were rectified and they run very well now, with ATF contract being an indirect confirmation. What is different between 40 and 9 mm cartridges that 40 is less affected by all those dimensional issues you had described above?
As Clint has mentioned, the case rim dimensions are larger and the groove is deeper(relative to the outer case rim) on the 40. Also, the diameter of the brass plays a critical role in how the spent cases clear the ejection port. The smaller case diameter is more apt to hit the vertical sidewall and deflect erratically than a 40.

I have found fewer incidences of brass hitting the shooter in the face, dribbling over to the left of the gun with the 40s than with the 9mm. That said, when I was working on Ltd. Division Glock 40s, we still lowered the ejection ports to get a more consistent 3:00 ejection pattern.

-Randy

Doc Glockster
11-21-11, 18:14
One of the unique things about Tenifer and Melonite is that you get an extremely hard surface skin- something like the hard candy coating on an M&M (yes, I am hungry while I type this). At 175K, micro cracks along the harder surface due to impact and shock/vibration can start to form in the areas around the ejection port-and often at the front area of the machined port. There is a good amount of compressive force in the area of the where the front of the barrel/chamber junction contacts the slide's locking surface during the unlocking phase, and then pulling forces as the slide returns to battery contributed by the recoil spring. With the hard surface, I believe the cracks can originate externally and work their way in to the softer core metal.

-Randy

And I wonder if this phenomenon of micro cracks developing in the hard surface and migrating into the softer core metal is also at the heart of the "dry firing causes cracked breach faces" problem.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92986

Glock is certainly proud of their Tenifer process, but I wonder sometimes if it's overkill leading to brittleness underneath. :confused:

As for the ejection port wall being too high, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Just eyeballing other pistols it makes you go "Hmmm."

It's a sad day when Glocks have to be tweaked and tuned like 1911's--might as well just get a 1911--but lowering the ejection port could be an easy fix if it doesn't result in premature side failure (obviously :D).

I'm going to keep an eye on this!

Randy Lee
11-22-11, 14:42
And I wonder if this phenomenon of micro cracks developing in the hard surface and migrating into the softer core metal is also at the heart of the "dry firing causes cracked breach faces" problem.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92986

Glock is certainly proud of their Tenifer process, but I wonder sometimes if it's overkill leading to brittleness underneath. :confused:

As for the ejection port wall being too high, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Just eyeballing other pistols it makes you go "Hmmm."

It's a sad day when Glocks have to be tweaked and tuned like 1911's--might as well just get a 1911--but lowering the ejection port could be an easy fix if it doesn't result in premature side failure (obviously :D).

I'm going to keep an eye on this!
I had a discussion with another engineer about the hard candy coating on stress points like barrels. The topic arose from seeing a couple of M&P barrels fracture and separate just forward of the chamber.

The wall thickness of the slides on the Glock is pretty robust, so with the 9mm cracking shouldn't be an issue provided the port isn't lowered excessively.

The failure at the breech is interesting... I haven't measured the thickness of the metal in that area. I haven't dry fired a Glock long enough to see this occur...

-Randy

JHC
11-30-11, 09:37
As Clint has mentioned, the case rim dimensions are larger and the groove is deeper(relative to the outer case rim) on the 40. Also, the diameter of the brass plays a critical role in how the spent cases clear the ejection port. The smaller case diameter is more apt to hit the vertical sidewall and deflect erratically than a 40.

I have found fewer incidences of brass hitting the shooter in the face, dribbling over to the left of the gun with the 40s than with the 9mm. That said, when I was working on Ltd. Division Glock 40s, we still lowered the ejection ports to get a more consistent 3:00 ejection pattern.

-Randy

And Gen 4 G21's seem to be getting only stellar reliability reviews. Really good info.

Orange-Fox
12-08-11, 01:00
Could you post a comparison pic of an unaltered ejection port and yours.

Randy Lee
12-08-11, 11:06
Could you post a comparison pic of an unaltered ejection port and yours.

Magsz will be posting comparative photos along with his evaluation shortly.
He will also be testing and evaluating our extractor in a G17 with the 30274 ejector. The hope is that the pattern of ejection will be steep enough that modifying the port.
I hope this is the case, but I remain skeptical...
Randy

HD1911
12-08-11, 18:39
Magsz will be posting comparative photos along with his evaluation shortly.
He will also be testing and evaluating our extractor in a G17 with the 30274 ejector. The hope is that the pattern of ejection will be steep enough that modifying the port.
I hope this is the case, but I remain skeptical...
Randy

U have any clue whatsoever as to a timeframe of when the Extractor will be made available to the masses? I'd be happy to test one for you in my Gen G17 ;) I have both Ejectors and do alot of shootin'....just sayin'...:D

Randy Lee
12-08-11, 23:01
U have any clue whatsoever as to a timeframe of when the Extractor will be made available to the masses? I'd be happy to test one for you in my Gen G17 ;) I have both Ejectors and do alot of shootin'....just sayin'...:D
Thanks! The fixtures are being made now so that they can be produced faster than one at a time. Making the part out of barstock requires some tricky milling...

Randy

DOA
12-08-11, 23:35
tagged for further info

Cosmo M3
12-28-11, 17:32
Randy,

Can you take a look at my post and tell me what you think about my experiment? Thanks.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92133&page=7

Heavy Metal
12-28-11, 18:53
Randy,

If you are going to all of this trouble to make high-end extractors, think about having them Nickle Boron plated. I would think in a lot size, it would not add much to the cost of each piece.

t1tan
01-12-12, 15:30
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/3520070672

Randy Lee
01-13-12, 22:13
Randy,

If you are going to all of this trouble to make high-end extractors, think about having them Nickle Boron plated. I would think in a lot size, it would not add much to the cost of each piece.

We will most likely have some sort of finish on the extractor- perhaps Melonite or NiB.

I am awaiting Magsz' evaluation of our extractor as well as our ejection port modification. He never pulls any punches, so I trust his reviews to help me improve my designs. He should have it posted sometime soon...

-Randy

EzGoingKev
03-03-12, 17:16
We will most likely have some sort of finish on the extractor- perhaps Melonite or NiB.

What about DLC?

TOM1911
03-09-12, 22:47
I'm tagging in on this thread, to see how the testing progresses.

EzGoingKev
03-10-12, 05:12
I'm tagging in on this thread, to see how the testing progresses.
Just a word of advice - how about next time you go to the top of the thread, click on the box that title "Thread Tools", and use the subscribe option.

There is no need to announce to everyone that you are now following this thread as it does not contribute any pertinent information to the subject.

G34Shooter
04-06-12, 12:17
Randy, I just sent this wild theory over to Scott:
I wonder if there is a gauge to check if these 9mm Glock chambers are on the smaller end of the SAAMI scale. Testing done by various known shooters have concluded the newest Glocks are much more precise than the older made Glocks, is it possible Glock tightened them up too much causing the ejection problem?

Randy Lee
04-06-12, 14:22
Randy, I just sent this wild theory over to Scott:
I wonder if there is a gauge to check if these 9mm Glock chambers are on the smaller end of the SAAMI scale. Testing done by various known shooters have concluded the newest Glocks are much more precise than the older made Glocks, is it possible Glock tightened them up too much causing the ejection problem?

There are so many variables in the system that can contribute to the problem that it is hard to identify exactly which ones are at play in any one gun. Once we are in our new facility (hopefully by summer), I will devote more time to analyzing the problem. My plan is to have the most sophisticated design and analysis lab for firearms on the west coast. Just cuz I can... :)

-Randy

G34Shooter
04-06-12, 14:26
There are so many variables in the system that can contribute to the problem that it is hard to identify exactly which ones are at play in any one gun. Once we are in our new facility (hopefully by summer), I will devote more time to analyzing the problem. My plan is to have the most sophisticated design and analysis lab for firearms on the west coast. Just cuz I can... :)

-Randy


Captain Randy to the rescue!!! :neo:

Ironman8
04-06-12, 14:36
There are so many variables in the system that can contribute to the problem that it is hard to identify exactly which ones are at play in any one gun. Once we are in our new facility (hopefully by summer), I will devote more time to analyzing the problem. My plan is to have the most sophisticated design and analysis lab for firearms on the west coast. Just cuz I can... :)

-Randy

Is the extractor still on schedule?.....err...wait, I'm not even sure what the "schedule" is :p

Randy Lee
04-06-12, 14:53
Is the extractor still on schedule?.....err...wait, I'm not even sure what the "schedule" is :p

Schedule? We don't need no stiinking schedule! :p

Actually, they are being manufactured now. We also are having prototype depressor springs fabricated to test as well.

-Randy

Ironman8
04-06-12, 15:17
Schedule? We don't need no stiinking schedule! :p

Actually, they are being manufactured now. We also are having prototype depressor springs fabricated to test as well.

-Randy

You da man! ;)

Will those springs ship with the extractor?
Also, if you can give an estimate, what will the new extractors cost? More/less/same as the M&P FRE?

Randy Lee
04-06-12, 18:55
You da man! ;)

Will those springs ship with the extractor?
Also, if you can give an estimate, what will the new extractors cost? More/less/same as the M&P FRE?

Hi Ironman,

The springs will be shipped with the extractors. We don't have a price yet, but I know they will be higher in price than the M&P extractors due to the complexity in machining the odd angles of the pivoting section.

Randy

Littlelebowski
04-06-12, 19:28
Put me down for three of everything.

Heavy Metal
04-06-12, 19:39
I think I would like to get one for my carry piece too.

Serpico1985
04-18-12, 12:36
It's been said before but i'll say it again. Thanks Randy Lee/apex for everything you do for the shooting industry. I can't think of another company as responsive to customer needs/wants as Apex. Your company modo should read: "You want it, We make it, You buy it"

Can't wait to try out the new extractor. I've got 3k worth of 9mm to test it out.

Keep up the good work!

Randy Lee
04-18-12, 15:44
Thanks!

stalker3
04-18-12, 22:15
Put me down for three of everything.

Ditto! Really looking forward to these.

mallowpufft
04-19-12, 00:10
Can't wait to see these things up for sale. My M&P needs some loving.

It's best to blame my misspelled words on autocorrect.

clarkz71
09-23-12, 09:31
Just came across this thread, very impressive Randy.

I'm interested in the ejection port work. Is that availible now? G23 late gen 3

Randy Lee
09-24-12, 16:10
Just came across this thread, very impressive Randy.

I'm interested in the ejection port work. Is that availible now? G23 late gen 3

Hi Clark,

We do offer the modification. I need to check with Scott as to the price.

-Randy

clarkz71
09-24-12, 20:09
Hi Clark,

We do offer the modification. I need to check with Scott as to the price.

-Randy

Thanks Randy. I'll contact you via PM about the details.

DontCome2MyHouse
09-24-12, 20:37
Randy,

Now that your extractors are becoming available will this alone solve problems or is it necessary to get the ejection port milled out? I have a 19 Gen3 and a 17 Gen4 both with the #30274 ejector.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Randy Lee
10-12-12, 22:09
Randy,

Now that your extractors are becoming available will this alone solve problems or is it necessary to get the ejection port milled out? I have a 19 Gen3 and a 17 Gen4 both with the #30274 ejector.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Hi,

The answer is - hopefully no. The Gen 4 guns seem to be working well with the new extractor. I started a new thread regarding the Gen 3. I am in the process of creating a Gen 3 specific extractor. If all goes well, no slide mods will be necessary

-Randy

brickboy240
10-15-12, 13:30
A polymer striker fired 9mm that is accurate, reliable and will not spit brass at your face. Requires no aftermarket parts to make it fly right....runs right out of the box and costs 500-600 bucks tops.

That is what we need because this sector seems to be void of a pistol like this.

This USED to be the market of the Glock 17/19...but not any more.

LOL