Glock Extractor Issues Gen 4 - Gen 3

[Bowser]

Who's word and on what street? I haven't seen any solid info on this.

[Cosmo M3]

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...1369607&page=8


"Just sharing my experience with the g19 gen 4. I purchased mine (new) back in March 2011 with a test fire date of February or January. I can't remember the exact dates, and I am too lazy to go look it up but its in the general time-frame. Took mine out to the range, and I immediately got what everyone else was complaining about... brass to the left, face, etc. As you can imagine, I was not happy. I have a G23 gen 4 which was purchased in 2010 with no issues. I continued a few more range sessions shooting about 200 to 300 rounds per session with the same results. I was primarily shooting 115 WWB, Federal, and Remington UMC. The pistol did come with the 0-4 RSA and was sporting the original 336 ejector of course. Despite the casings going everywhere, I never had any type of failure/jam.

After I had enough pain, I did some research and purchased a 9mm Lone Wolf version (so I thought) extractor directly from LWD's website. Once I received the LWD extractor, I replaced the original glock extractor and went to the range. After the 1st range session, everything was good. No more face pelting. Now I am up around 3,000 rounds using the same type of ammo, using the same LWD extractor, and no failures/jams. The gun is definitely consistent with brass ejections. I am still using the original Glock ejector. A few months ago I did get the new 0-4-3 RSA from Glock and the results are still good with no issues.

Now... having said all of the that, I need to mention one more important fact. Obviously I bought my LWD extractor earlier in the year. It is stamped with the number "4" on it. I have heard that Lone Wolf had the LWD 9mm and .40 extractors mixed up. My understanding is the LWD extractor stamped with "4" is for the .40 caliber. If that's the case, then that's what LWD sent me, and I re-verified it last night when I took the slide apart. That leads me to believe that yes, there was some type of mix up, and when I ordered the 9mm LWD extractor, they were sending the .40 extractors. I guess it worked out since I am not having sporadic ejection issues. I never purchased the 9mm LWD extractor stamped "3" that Lone Wolf now has on their website. Moral of the story is... you may want to try the .40 extractor ("4" Stamp) in your 9mm. It's sad that you even need to do this of course when it should work with original Glock parts.

In addition, I am hoping that Glock will start sending out the new 9mm and .40 ejectors for purchase soon so I can get my hands on them to test. I called Glock 2 weeks ago, and they will not send me the new ejectors unless I am an armorer. They would pay for me to send the pistols back though in order to get the ejectors installed. I thought about it, but decided not to send them in. I'll wait it out I guess.

BTW, some other things I didn't mention. During my range sessions and testing, I tried multiple Glock extractors with different numerical stamps, new plunger/SLB, Glockmeister RSAs, etc. All failed to assist in my sporadic ejection issues. Only solution for me was the LWD "4" extractor.

Just thought I would share.

Thanks all. "

[mikejg]

It's hard for me to visit that forum now with all of the Glock fanboys claiming there's no issue and "who cares where brass ejects, just wear a hat"

The number of people over there who cannot set aside personal feelings and objectively look at the facts is astounding.

I may go to the range today to test my old Gen3 26 extractor in the new 19. It's the only extractor I have that I haven't tested in the new pistol.

One interesting thing I noticed last range session:

-Shot new Gen3 19 with polished stock extractor again and still had erratic ejection

-With the LWD extractor the extraction was less erratic, but still not consistent.

-I put LWD extractor in older Gen3 19 and experienced 4 stovepipes and brass all over the place through 2 magazines. This again leads me to believe something is different with the newer slides.

I'm still waiting on the new ejector and a new extractor to arrive, but will test as soon as they arrive.

[brianc3]

I have read this whole thread and others relating to this issue. After my reading there seems to be no discernible pattern with these problems unless I missed something. Is there a date range or serial number prefix for either the gen 3 or the gen 4's that are having the most problems?

[Psalms144.1]

Brian - someone has posted (I forget where) from a "reliable source" that there's a possibility that Glock has one of their frame molds for the Gen4 G19s somehow out of whack - so you either get a Gen4 that works, or nothing you do to it will make it right.

I've owned three G19s produced since spring of 2010, two Gen4s and one 3rd Gen. None of them worked reliably, so my sample is 3 out of 3 bad recent production G19s.

Others have gone 4 out of 4 or more good G19s - so, it really must be a luck of the draw kind of thing...

Regards,

Kevin

[Randy Lee]

I posted my below response in another thread, but I think it is relevant here as well.

I have a new gen 4 19 donated by a leo that I have fired the very first rounds through. It is a lemon that shows all of the problems stated in this thread. The particular gun has a 336 ejector, 0-3-4 RSA, and dipped extractor.
This is the second gun to test our extractor. Magsz is beta testing the first gun using the modifications I listed below. He should have an evaluation available after the holidays.

,
-Randy

Glock Gen4 G19 update,

I have officially sent my pistol back 4 times. Just talked on the phone with management a few days ago, and they told me they are not going to ship me my gun back or even a new one because none of the G19's they have are working well with Winchester White Box 115gr. 9mm rounds from Walmart.

Glock now has, and is testing most 9mm guns with the Winchester White box, and they realize there is an issue, and they will not be giving me a gun until they figure out why this ammo is not working with the G19. They said they are determined to fix the problem.

Update to come once I hear something.

Hi Freerunner,

That is unfortunate news indeed.

After having worked on the Gen 4 guns, the primary flaw lies in the redesign of the extractor and it's implementation into the 9mm pistols.
If you look from the front of the slide (barrel removed) to the breech, you will notice that the claw (surface that bears against the case) of the extractor is angled rather than running vertical or parallel to the breechface sidewall. As a result, the case is much more likely to disengage from the extractor prematurely. In essence, the case is being released before the ejector even contacts the back of the spent case. Hi speed video that you can find on youtube demonstrates this phenomenon. The result is most often weak ejection, horizontal stovepipes and even reversed horizontal stovepipes.

I can only speculate as to why Glock incorporated this into the extractor design, but my best guess is that it was originally done to reduce the cycling problems that LE were experiencing with the G22s and 23s when lights were mounted to the frame. The .40 has a bit more extractor groove depth and the design change in this caliber might have been more advantageous in solving the failures to feed that were commonly observed.

When you couple the hook angle with tolerance between slide and frame, frame flex, barrel rebound (recoil induced) and the dimensions of the Winchester brass, I suspect that the factory is seeing a failure rate in excess of 50%. Your conversation with the factory rep. supports this hypothesis.

The case MUST remain in contact with the extractor claw until acted upon by the ejector. This is why there are more postings about positive results when people install HREDs, Lone Wolf extractors, etc.

Once you have positive extraction of the case, the contact with the ejector must create a high enough arc to clear the horizontal wall of the slide's ejection port. This fact is why some people have reported no significant improvement in ejection pattern when installing the HRED, aftermarket extractor, 30274 ejector and/or combination of the aforementioned parts. It will work for some, but not for others.

My recommendations to Glock would be this:
-Better extractor to positively extract and maintain contact with the
brass until it is contacted by the ejector.

-Use the 30274 ejector as it does improve the chances of the spent
case clearing the ejection port wall.

-Lower the ejection port wall and mill in a secondary chamfer into the
slide's ejection port sidewall.

If the manufacturer were to implement these changes, their failure rate as far as ejection/extraction in the 9mm Gen 3s and Gen 4s would drop to less than 1% even with WWB ammunition.

-Randy

[brianc3]

I posted my below response in another thread, but I think it is relevant here as well.

I have a new gen 4 19 donated by a leo that I have fired the very first rounds through. It is a lemon that shows all of the problems stated in this thread. The particular gun has a 336 ejector, 0-3-4 RSA, and dipped extractor.
This is the second gun to test our extractor. Magsz is beta testing the first gun using the modifications I listed below. He should have an evaluation available after the holidays.

,
-Randy



Hi Freerunner,

That is unfortunate news indeed.

After having worked on the Gen 4 guns, the primary flaw lies in the redesign of the extractor and it's implementation into the 9mm pistols.
If you look from the front of the slide (barrel removed) to the breech, you will notice that the claw (surface that bears against the case) of the extractor is angled rather than running vertical or parallel to the breechface sidewall. As a result, the case is much more likely to disengage from the extractor prematurely. In essence, the case is being released before the ejector even contacts the back of the spent case. Hi speed video that you can find on youtube demonstrates this phenomenon. The result is most often weak ejection, horizontal stovepipes and even reversed horizontal stovepipes.

I can only speculate as to why Glock incorporated this into the extractor design, but my best guess is that it was originally done to reduce the cycling problems that LE were experiencing with the G22s and 23s when lights were mounted to the frame. The .40 has a bit more extractor groove depth and the design change in this caliber might have been more advantageous in solving the failures to feed that were commonly observed.

When you couple the hook angle with tolerance between slide and frame, frame flex, barrel rebound (recoil induced) and the dimensions of the Winchester brass, I suspect that the factory is seeing a failure rate in excess of 50%. Your conversation with the factory rep. supports this hypothesis.

The case MUST remain in contact with the extractor claw until acted upon by the ejector. This is why there are more postings about positive results when people install HREDs, Lone Wolf extractors, etc.

Once you have positive extraction of the case, the contact with the ejector must create a high enough arc to clear the horizontal wall of the slide's ejection port. This fact is why some people have reported no significant improvement in ejection pattern when installing the HRED, aftermarket extractor, 30274 ejector and/or combination of the aforementioned parts. It will work for some, but not for others.

My recommendations to Glock would be this:
-Better extractor to positively extract and maintain contact with the
brass until it is contacted by the ejector.

-Use the 30274 ejector as it does improve the chances of the spent
case clearing the ejection port wall.

-Lower the ejection port wall and mill in a secondary chamfer into the
slide's ejection port sidewall.

If the manufacturer were to implement these changes, their failure rate as far as ejection/extraction in the 9mm Gen 3s and Gen 4s would drop to less than 1% even with WWB ammunition.

-Randy

Randy,

Thanks for your input and analysis of this issue. The question that remains for me is why is this problem also being experienced on the more recent Gen 3's? Do you know if the failure rate on the recent production Gen 3's is similar to the amount of issues on the Gen 4?

[Randy Lee]

I have not looked closely at the newer Gen 3s as my primary focus has been to help the Gen 4s.
To me, Glock 17s and 19s have almost always demonstrated erratic ejection. I think most of the time I was told I was either limp wristing, or just not having enough mass behind the gun. So being de-masculated by my glock shooting peers, I went over to the 1911.

While I have not studied the changes in the gen 3 product line, it seems to me that the symptoms are identical to what the gen 4s are experiencing. It would be much easier for me if I had access to the engineering drawings and tolerance specifications...

Randy

[Heavy Metal]

I took my new Gen 3 RTF-2 G-17 to the range today. Did the same thing ALL my gen three 17's and 19's do. That is to clear the ejection port but eject erratically. Got popped in the face a few times. When I got to the gas station and looked in the mirror washing up, I had a couple of black circles on my forehead above the top of my shooting glasses where the cases struck me.


My G-20 10mm however, ejects positively and with the predicitability of a good Swiss Watch, dropping the cases in a small area.

All my Gen 3's 9mm's will be getting the improved ejector when they become available.

[platoonDaddy]

While I have not studied the changes in the gen 3 product line, it seems to me that the symptoms are identical to what the gen 4s are experiencing. It would be much easier for me if I had access to the engineering drawings and tolerance specifications...

Randy

Have you ever talked to Glock about being a consultant on this or any issue? From your postings, you certainly have a grasp of the issues and one would assume Glock would have you on their payroll as an outside consultant.