Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by munch520
I've read that several people with ejection problems found relief by switching to hotter 124/147gr ammunition. Is this the actual solution, or does it just mask an underlying flaw in the firearm's design? Shouldn't a new 9mm Glock Gen3/4 be able to reliably cycle and eject any SAAMI spec 115gr ammunition?
Those of us that have switched back to 115gr and experienced no issues would tell you that 'breaking in' with hotter ammo doesn't mask, but rather fixes, an issue. So yes, it has been a solution for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyFingers
Thanks munch520, I'll keep that in mind.
The MIM versus "Non MIM" is wrong.
Here are some pictures of a Glock Extractor that has never been in a gun, it is part of my spare parts kit that I purchased in early 2007. Produced before the now dreaded "Dip Extractors".
Notice the 2 in the picture. (You will have to blow it up) At my armorers course, the extractor in my gun was a 13 and my brother's was an 18. Both were older extractors as well.
An embossed number like that has to either come from MIM or casting. The cost to machine that in would be ridiculous, if it were even possible. That number signifies a cavity number, most likely.
My bet is that they are MIM and set up in a multi cavity die so that you get 25 or 30 pieces per shot.
They did change tooling when they went to the new dipped design. There is probably a very small issue with one or more of the cavities that causes a tolerance stack up issue in some guns. (The parts are all in spec but some times, certain specs add up the wrong way.) Root Sum Squares tolerancing will give you a good idea, but your process might not reflect the statisical bias in that calculation. That is most likely why they are keen on getting the guns back to do the changes at Smyrna. Most likely they want to measure all the dimensions on those particular guns and see if a pattern emerges. Once they have the pattern, they will know what they need to fix. Something like slides with X cavity extractor, with Y angle Ejector, Z spring rate RSA throws brass at 1 o'clock.
Unfortunately it probably isn't as simple as "go back to the old design". That tool was probably worn out and they had to change to new tooling, or maybe they upgraded to a new system to put out more parts and the tooling won't fit any more. That is just the extractors, who knows what all has changed on other components.
Manufacturing is alot more complicated than some people understand, it isn't just A+B=C (Fortunately for me, keeps me in a job.:D)
Some of you guys would walk every where you went if you knew what really went into making your cars.....:haha:
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/h...l/IMG_0831.jpg
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/h...l/IMG_0834.jpg
Extractor still hasn't shipped yet lol.
Thanks for the links, but I think those are the older 90-degree ones. Anyway, I was able to track down a 15-degree non-LCI extractor (and SLB) at a local shop this morning. Getting ready to head out of town for the holiday, but will definitely be trying out the new setup when we come back.Quote:
Originally Posted by HD1911
Ahh gotcha, sorry. Let me know how it all works out! Happy Thanksgiving!Quote:
Originally Posted by Argus
My springs are replaced with the ones Glock just mailed me, hopefully I won't be having any of these extractor issues mentioned... I guess I'll find out this Sunday at the range. I'll be shooting a new G19 & G17, both gen 4's, using 9mm Blazer ammo so I should be looking out for stovepipes and ejections to my forehead? Super. Anything else?
Can someone explain to me what and where is this "dip" in the extractor is. is it on side side that protrudes when there is a round in the chamber?
There's a picture of the "dip" in the Glock extractor near the top of page two in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser
Have had issues with my new 3rd gen 17L. Fired case is dated 9/26/11. Serial number prefix is RXD. Only taken it to the range once as of yet. In the first 100 rounds of WWB 115 grain ammo, I had approximately 10 failures to feed. Unfortunately, the range prohibits photography, so I was not able to photographically document the failures. About half resulted in the round hung up in the chamber at about a 45 degree angle. In the other half, the round appeared to be feeding at the correct elevation, but the bullet nose was butted against left side of the barrel wall, where the nose had missed the ramp/chamber entirely.
My suspicion is that friction between the extractor and the slide were causing the extractor to improperly guide the round.
Extractor is the "dip" type. Numbered "3" on the flat side of the cylindrical part, rather than behind the claw, as in Crow Hunter's picture. After only 100 rounds, there is significant finish wear with bright shiny spots along what appear to be molding/casting seams. I'm hoping that these areas will continue to wear and the problem will take care of itself. However, I might give the molding seams on both sides a few passes with an ultra-fine ceramic stone to speed this process along. Either way, I will report the results.
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/i...extractor1.jpg
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/i...extractor2.jpg
Before anyone jumps on me for limp wristing, I've been shooting Glocks for ten years and tens of thousands of rounds. This is the first such issue I've encountered.
Update: I polished the extractor with an ultra-fine ceramic stone. Nothing radical, just smoothed out the casting seems a bit and polished things. Fired two hundred more rounds of 115 grain Federal. No improvement. Still getting about 10 failures to feed per 100 rounds.
I called Glock tech support. Their solution: use a 124 grain round. They also denied that there had been any extractor revisions in the 3rd gen guns. Thinking about switching to the PPQ as my go-to pistol and just saying **** Glock. If I wanted an ammo-sensitive pistol, I would not have purchased a Glock in the first place.
I've had similar issues as others in this thread.
I tried polishing the extractor, just received the LWD extractor and tried that, and tried an older extractor from a circa 2002 19 I own. All no joy.
I've read that a few people are having luck with the newer Gen 4 ejector(30274) in the newer Gen 3's. I had my local Glock armorer order the new Gen 4 ejector and a new extractor. When they arrive and I'm able to test it out, I'll report back.
Mike,
Have you tried your newer 3rd gen slide on your 2002 frame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikejg
Yes, I did try that as well. I apologize for not mentioning that in the previous post.
I don't remember if it was this site or another, but I read a theory regarding why this is happening with newer Glocks...
First a couple of pictures. My older 19 and the newer 19 with issues. I took 2 pics switching which side each slide was on to get different angles.
Newer Glock on left.
http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/s...5/DSC_1813.jpg
Newer Glock on right.
http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/s...5/DSC_1815.jpg
You can clearly see the gap between the extractor claw and the slide is bigger on the newer Glock. The cut-out on the slide for the extractor must be different in the newer Glocks.
This bigger gap allows the shell casing to drop prior to the casing hitting the ejector. So the ejector is hitting the casing at a higher point on the casing and causing erratic ejection or failures.
The stubbier new ejector is probably less forgiving of where the casing strikes it. It's not pointed, but a flatter surface.
I don't have any high-speed video to prove this, but to me it seems logical.
Thoughts???
Those appears to be different, but it's not clear if it is the slide or the extractors. My new 3rd gen with a 11/2011 test fire date looks identical to my older 3rd gens and not pronounced like yours. However, it extracts well.
The reason I asked about swapping frames/slides was something I noticed on my friend's new G19. His ejector (old style, #336 ) appears to be about 0.5 mm lower more than mine measured from the top of the slide. I do not know if this is something to look into, but he was having extraction issues too. The saga continues...
Good point.
I swapped extractors with slides just now and the same gap is present in the newer slide no matter which extractor is put in the new slide; old, new, or Lone Wolf.
Well, that is not good.
To be clear, are you saying that the gap is so large that the extractor cannot hold the case in the slide assembly? For example:
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...SCN1960_sm.jpg
It will hold a round, but just barely and not with nearly as much force as my old Gen 3.