View Full Version : Erratic Ejection in M&P's, Glock's, Walther's, etc
I started to look at the erratic ejection of my S&W M&P (9mm), Glock 19 (GEN2) and my Walther PPQ (9mm) to figure out what the root cause was.
Initially, I believed it to be the improper angle (or lack thereof) on most all ejectors. After attending Vickers 1911 Pistol Smith class (where we learned how to angle ejectors a certain way) and seeing proof positive of what a perfect ejection pattern looked like, I was convinced that by changing the ejectors angle on the above pistol, I could resolve this issue.
So to prove my theory, I established a baseline with my M&P as the first test subject. I fired ten shots. The casings landed somewhere between 3 and 6 o'clock. I removed the ejector and angled it. Re-installed it into the gun and shot another ten round group. The casings now landed in a pile that you could basically cover with your hand. Cool! Problem solved (or so I thought).
With my success, I decided to tackle another gun. This time, it was my GEN II G19. This was a true test of this theory I thought. So I shot a ten round group and tracked the spent casings. They landed everywhere from 1 to 5 o'clock and seemed to kind of come out of the gun like a wounded duck (wobbly). Like above, I removed the ejector and put a new profile on it and tested the theory. This time, eight casings landed at about 3.5-4 position (wounded duck looking) and TWO flew out of the gun at the 3 position. Hmm that was odd I thought.
With the partial success on the Glock, I moved onto my PPQ. Same deal, test fired ten rounds and mapped their locations. Much like the Glock, they rolled out of the gun (wounded duck) and landed anywhere from 2-5 o'clock. I modified the ejector and shot another group. Same deal as the Glock. Small pile around the 3.5-4 position with 2 rockets out to the 3 position.
Interesting side not, on the casings that shot out of the gun (Glock and PPQ), they traveled a FULL 1-2 feet FARTHER than the other rounds. Hmmm....
Baffled by this, I started to look at the ejection port window of the slide. Of the three pistols, the M&P does the best and deepest ramp leading into the ejection port. Next would be Glock and then the PPQ (which doesn't have an angle at all and is just a right angle).
The M&P's ejection port has a straight line in it where the edge of the casing is scraping it.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Repair/MP_EjectionPort.jpg
The Glock's ejection port has a wider, flatter contact point with the casing as the side of it is hitting ramp. Also noted (which you cannot see in the pic), below the ramp of the ejection port, there are solid brass hits where the casing basically slammed into the side of it.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Repair/Glock19_EjectionPort.jpg
The PPQ has a similar ejection port mark (wide like the Glock), but since there is NO ramp leading to the window, you just see a solid brass mark for about half of the window length (which leads me to believe that the entire body of the casing is making contact).
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Repair/PPQ_Ejection_Port.jpg
What does all this mean? Well first, take a moment and read Mr. Lee's comments in this thread about fixing the ejection issues with the GEN 4 Glock: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92447
As most of us have always known, Glock pistols have always had a very erratic ejection pattern. We have lived with it because (for the most part) the GEN 1, GEN 2 and GEN 3 guns have been quite reliable. With the extractor and RSA changes in the GEN 4's, this erratic ejection problem showed itself like never before.
Most Glock shooters (that shoot the gun a lot), have seen the classic Glock Stovepipe. This malfunction is caused by the casing hitting steep ramp, rolling back into the gun (at an angle) and then the next round pushes it straight up while the slide pins it against the barrel hood. The reason for this problem is because the ramp angle of the ejection port was wrong (needs to be around a 45 degree angle and or lowered).
Conclusions. After a lot of time watching spent casings, I am of the opinion that 70-80% off ALL casings (fired from the Glock and PPQ) are hitting the ejection port ramp and randomly wobbling out of the gun. The other 20-30% are not touching it at all and is why you sometimes see casings fly out much farther.
I have also come to the conclusion that ALL FTE are caused by their improper ramp angle (or height) on the ejection port (assuming that the spring tension is good on the extractor claw is in spec).
For those wanting to see what GOOD extraction looks like, check out a properly built 1911 (with a lowered and flared ejection port). The casings will come out at the 3 o'clock position about 5-6 feet from the shooter!
C4
Good article.
Lonewolf slides have a lowered ejection port. I've always been curious about 'em, now I think they may have been on to something for awhile. I may try one out now (unless you're gonna start doing Glock reliability tunes).
My 1911s do eject perfectly as well.
FWIW, it's a case. Different than a casing.:eek:
packinaglock
03-03-12, 17:37
Very interesting! I have a 2 month old Glock 19 gen 4. When I went to the range with my Dad I stood behind him when he shot. The Federal champion and Remington UMC were pretty much ejecting all over the place. But when we shot the RWS 124g and the Speer Lawman you could have damn near set a coffee can on the ground and caught the brass.
This is why Randy cut the ejection port on my gun.
Less deflection off of the ramp with the lowered port.
Way more consistent ejection. The new extractor helps a bit too... :p
I have also come to the conclusion that ALL FTE are caused by their improper ramp angle (or height) on the ejection port (assuming that the spring tension is good on the extractor claw is in spec).
C4
Grant, The only thing I would add to this is that where the claw grabs the case (2, 3 or 4 o'clock) will affect what angle the case leaves the gun in conjunction with where the ejector strikes the case.
Since the claw is the pivot point of the ejecting case changing location by 15 or 30 minutes would (theoretically) change the arc that the case describes as it exits the ejection port.
God forbid the manufacturers pay attention to all this and optimize it all for best reliabilty. :angry:
Good article.
Lonewolf slides have a lowered ejection port. I've always been curious about 'em, now I think they may have been on to something for awhile. I may try one out now (unless you're gonna start doing Glock reliability tunes).
My 1911s do eject perfectly as well.
Thanks. Interesting on the LW slides. I did not realize that they lowered the ejection port.
C4
Is there any rational reason why the manufacturers would not take this into account and make accommodations in slide design such as with the GLOCK?
Grant, The only thing I would add to this is that where the claw grabs the case (2, 3 or 4 o'clock) will affect what angle the case leaves the gun in conjunction with where the ejector strikes the case.
Since the claw is the pivot point of the ejecting case changing location by 15 or 30 minutes would (theoretically) change the arc that the case describes as it exits the ejection port.
God forbid the manufacturers pay attention to all this and optimize it all for best reliabilty. :angry:
Since the case can really only come out of the barrel one way, I don't think that the position that the extractor grabs the rim really plays that much of a roll as to where the case lands. Couple that with the fact that in all the examples above, the case is making contact with ramp in the ejection port, it plays even less importance.
Now, if the ramp in the ejection port is not being contacted, then I think how/where the extractor grabs the rim will affect the height of the arc.
IMHO, where the ejector makes contact with the case (depth inside the gun) and the angle in which the ejector makes contact with the case directly affects where the case ends up.
To prove this theory, I have a GEN 4 G19 coming into my shop to get worked on. It has all the problems we are seeing with them and will allow me to prove all my theories (as the owner will allow me to lower the ejection port).
C4
The Dumb Gun Collector
03-03-12, 18:51
Hk pistols, in my experience, have extremely regular ejection patterns.
Is there any rational reason why the manufacturers would not take this into account and make accommodations in slide design such as with the GLOCK?
They don't know it is an issue? Don't care?
C4
The Dumb Gun Collector
03-03-12, 18:51
The p7, of course, regularly ejects its casings to mars.
The p7, of course, regularly ejects its casings to mars.
LOL, yes. I really don't care where the spent cases go (just as long as they are not hitting me in the face).
C4
Ok. So I may be ignorant. But does it really matter where the spent cartridge case ends up. As long as the pistol is functioning as it should what does the geographic location of a spent cartridge case matter? I'm not trying to be argumentative here. This is a question I've always had in my mind. And seeing Grant as the OP, I have to belief that this is something that needs to be taken into account. (I say that because I respect his opinion and have sent many dollars his way). I've had pistols that had inconsistent ejection patterns but where absolutely reliable. Thanks in advance for any response to my post.
Great report. Will there be pics of the modified ejectors?
Ok. So I may be ignorant. But does it really matter where the spent cartridge case ends up. As long as the pistol is functioning as it should what does the geographic location of a spent cartridge case matter? I'm not trying to be argumentative here. This is a question I've always had in my mind. And seeing Grant as the OP, I have to belief that this is something that needs to be taken into account. (I say that because I respect his opinion and have sent many dollars his way). I've had pistols that had inconsistent ejection patterns but where absolutely reliable. Thanks in advance for any response to my post.
I am most likely out of my lane here, but I will try to put into words what I think on this.
I guess I will use the AR as an example since there is the pie graph floating around that tries to help out with irregular ejection and what to do to "fix" it. Do the guns in question that dont throw it "perfectly" function, for the most part yes and they could even be called reliable. However we know in the AR that brass doing funky things besides ejection at 4 oclockish shows an issue with the gun that needs to be corrected before it beats itself to death due to running to hard, stops stripping rounds out of the magazine because its under gassed, or any one of a couple other issues.
I think the same can be said for handguns. Does brass ejecting one way or another cause the gun to function any less affectively, maybe maybe not. In a hand gun you have a far smaller, IMO, window of what is acceptable vs. what will bring a gun down. I think its interesting to see what really causes a "stove pipe" and that is the case hitting the ejection port and coming back into the gun and not necessarily poor extraction/ejection. You may have VERY powerful extraction and ejection, but still have a stove pipe because of this. Ammo strength can also cause issues due to slower slide velocities and what not. I think tuning extractors/ejectors/ejection ports is simply a tool to allow the gun to run on basically any ammo. Maybe the guns in question would run great on 124g+p rounds, but on 115g WWB or Wolf have stove pipe issues. There is a reason that 1911's have lowered and flared ejection ports and its not because it looks better.
Did anybody follow my rambling there?
Is there any reason for brass contacting the front, vertical edge (forward of the ramp) of the ejection port? My Gen.4s have all kinds of brass markings in that location.
Crow Hunter
03-04-12, 08:33
Grant
When you are doing your testing, keep an eye on the magazine as well. It plays a role in ejection. At least on a Glock, it won't eject at all without a magazine in place. The case will just fall out of the magwell. I don't know about the others though.
To really eliminate this factor in your testing, you should probably start off checking with just a single round loaded into the magazine. Test this 10 times, note the location of the brass. Then load the magazine to full capacity and fire 10 rounds, topping off after each round fired, note the location of the brass. Of course using the same ammo out of the same lot if possible.
You may see some difference in ejection pattern based on the number of rounds left in the magazine. That has been my experience with Glocks anyway. In my experience, the more rounds in the mag, the closer to "noon" that the rounds are ejected, the fewer rounds, the closer to 3 o'clock.
It would be really telling for you, since you have a Ransom rest. All my messing around has been unsupported firing, which means the mass of the gun (decreasing as rounds are expended)/my grip may also be playing a role.
Is there any reason for brass contacting the front, vertical edge (forward of the ramp) of the ejection port? My Gen.4s have all kinds of brass markings in that location.
If it has one of the umpteen earlier recoil spring versions with excessive rate and preload, that could be part of it. The extractor generation could also be in play.
Interesting. It's only a sample of one but my Gen4 G22 would throw them back at my face and once ejected the empty to the left of the gun, at a 90 degree angle! Robb replaced the ejector with the new version and I've had perfect ejection ever since. Probably between 4-5 o'clock. Its hard to tell where they go after they bounce and slide around on the floor.
Good stuff though. If I get a Gen4 G19 soon a trip to Randy might be in order :D
AngeredKabar
03-04-12, 09:34
Grant
When you are doing your testing, keep an eye on the magazine as well. It plays a role in ejection. At least on a Glock, it won't eject at all without a magazine in place. The case will just fall out of the magwell. I don't know about the others though.
To really eliminate this factor in your testing, you should probably start off checking with just a single round loaded into the magazine. Test this 10 times, note the location of the brass. Then load the magazine to full capacity and fire 10 rounds, topping off after each round fired, note the location of the brass. Of course using the same ammo out of the same lot if possible.
You may see some difference in ejection pattern based on the number of rounds left in the magazine. That has been my experience with Glocks anyway. In my experience, the more rounds in the mag, the closer to "noon" that the rounds are ejected, the fewer rounds, the closer to 3 o'clock.
It would be really telling for you, since you have a Ransom rest. All my messing around has been unsupported firing, which means the mass of the gun (decreasing as rounds are expended)/my grip may also be playing a role.
I've noticed some ejection quirks in my 2005 G26 as well. 2:30 to 4:00 ejection as the mag is emptied then occasionally a 9:00 on the last round. Mine also stove piped the 2 times I've tried shooting it without a magazine in it.
Robb Jensen
03-04-12, 09:48
I've found that putting Gen 4 9mm ejectors in my Gen 2 G19s has caused then brass to no longer hit me in the head. Before I'd get hit in head about 4-6 times per 50 rounds.
glockshooter
03-04-12, 11:36
Robb
I wonder if shooting technique plays a role in any of this stuff. I'm not referring to limp writing but over all technique. I have never experience any of these issues from any of the more than 20 Glocks I have owned over the years. I have 3 gen4s now and I have not experienced any of the problems. I still have the original 336 ejector and extractor in my early gen4 17. It is supposed to be the devil, but has been flawless.
Thoughts?
Matt
Robb Jensen
03-04-12, 12:06
I'm sure it plays a role just as the power level and quality of the ammo. Most of the 9mm I shoot is stuff we sell at the store which varies in quality power. Friday night I was shooting 115gr Federal white range & target. Yesterday I was shooting 124gr Montana Gold reloads. Between Friday and yesterday I fired 450 rounds. Didn't have any brass hit me from either Gen 2 Glock 19 I do like the new 9mm ejectors in these old guns.
Some Gen4s are running very well with the 336 ejector and DIP extractor. With guns with issues most people are noticing issues with the old ejectors quickly and other guns are running up to about 4K rounds and the the issues appear and get really bad. This is why for 9mm Glocks I prefer Gen 2s and very early Gen3s. For .40 I like Gen4s.
I had a very early Gen 4 Glock 17 from before they started changing the recoil springs. Mine would run really well with M882 military ball or anything +P & +P+ but it would cause 180 degree stovepipes with average 9mm commercial ammo usually twice out of 17 rounds. I later tried a Jäger Gen4 guide rod with a Gen 3 spring on it and it them became much better but would still have the occasional 180 degree stovepipe.
180 degree stovepipe = empty casing stuck in the ejection port with the case mouth facing the shooter.
I've yet to have a .45 stoppage with a Gen4 Glock 21, nor any stoppages in my Gen 4 Glock 23, Gen 4 Glock 22 or Gen 4 Glock 35. Even when I had the old 1882 ejectors in the .40s i had no issues. The new ejectors in the .40s do seem to make the pistol hurl the brass further and more consistent.
Robb
I wonder if shooting technique plays a role in any of this stuff. I'm not referring to limp writing but over all technique. I have never experience any of these issues from any of the more than 20 Glocks I have owned over the years. I have 3 gen4s now and I have not experienced any of the problems. I still have the original 336 ejector and extractor in my early gen4 17. It is supposed to be the devil, but has been flawless.
Thoughts?
Matt
My Gen.4 23 assaults me with brass from time to time but hasn't jammed after approximately 3k rounds. It has the older ejector but the latest RSA. My Gen.4 22 came with the old style ejector (latest RSA) and had many 180 degree stovepipes, double feeds, slide over base malfunctions, etc. Casings ejected at every direction including my face. I managed to find the new version of the .40 ejector and it has been flawless ever since. It commonly shows a lot of brass marks on the edges of the ejections port but as of now it runs well. Casings eject to my right uniformly. I need to try the new ejector in my 23 to see if it has the same effect.
I've found that putting Gen 4 9mm ejectors in my Gen 2 G19s has caused then brass to no longer hit me in the head. Before I'd get hit in head about 4-6 times per 50 rounds.
Interesting. Are they longer or shorter than the GEN II's?
C4
Excellent thread.
I just got back from the range and all of my 9mm Glocks have very erratic and weak ejection. I've never paid any attention until I bought a late model Gen 3 19 that throws half the casings back in your face. I tried five or six different types of ammo, from subsonic 147's to +P+ 115's. Ammo type made no difference. I have a Lone Wolf extractor on backorder, and I may have to try the White Sound setup as well.
Clay
Robb Jensen
03-04-12, 17:19
Interesting. Are they longer or shorter than the GEN II's?
C4
They're about the same length but shaped differently and it seems more centerline to the slide where the casing is going to hit it. The face thickness of the ejector where the casing is going to hit it is thicker too. They come in the Gen4 trigger housing but you just pull it out and install it in the Gen 2 or 3 housing. Gen 4 trigger housings won't fit in Gen 2 or 3 frames.
Ok. So I may be ignorant. But does it really matter where the spent cartridge case ends up. As long as the pistol is functioning as it should what does the geographic location of a spent cartridge case matter? I'm not trying to be argumentative here. This is a question I've always had in my mind. And seeing Grant as the OP, I have to belief that this is something that needs to be taken into account. (I say that because I respect his opinion and have sent many dollars his way). I've had pistols that had inconsistent ejection patterns but where absolutely reliable. Thanks in advance for any response to my post.
A gun that kicks brass in just about every direction and or if the rounds look "wobbly" as they come out means that they are making contact with something that they either shouldn't or are making to much contact.
This can lead to a gun being un-reliable or the cause of any/all FTE IMHO.
C4
Great report. Will there be pics of the modified ejectors?
I will at a later date.
C4
Is there any reason for brass contacting the front, vertical edge (forward of the ramp) of the ejection port? My Gen.4s have all kinds of brass markings in that location.
Please post a pic if you can.
C4
Grant
When you are doing your testing, keep an eye on the magazine as well. It plays a role in ejection. At least on a Glock, it won't eject at all without a magazine in place. The case will just fall out of the magwell. I don't know about the others though.
To really eliminate this factor in your testing, you should probably start off checking with just a single round loaded into the magazine. Test this 10 times, note the location of the brass. Then load the magazine to full capacity and fire 10 rounds, topping off after each round fired, note the location of the brass. Of course using the same ammo out of the same lot if possible.
You may see some difference in ejection pattern based on the number of rounds left in the magazine. That has been my experience with Glocks anyway. In my experience, the more rounds in the mag, the closer to "noon" that the rounds are ejected, the fewer rounds, the closer to 3 o'clock.
It would be really telling for you, since you have a Ransom rest. All my messing around has been unsupported firing, which means the mass of the gun (decreasing as rounds are expended)/my grip may also be playing a role.
Funny you bring this up. In the 1911 pistol smith class, we had to do a bunch of live fire function checks. One of them is to shoot the gun with NO mag in it and make sure the case ejects (and not fall out the bottom of the mag well). If the case does fall out the bottom, you have a problem.
The Glock on the other hand will fail the above test. The Glock mag actually has to support the case as it ejects. So yes, it can/does play a part in where a case ejects, but what impact this more is the ramp on the ejection port.
C4
Robb Jensen
03-04-12, 20:25
Grant I'll send you 2 to play with to see what you think.
They're about the same length but shaped differently and it seems more centerline to the slide where the casing is going to hit it. The face thickness of the ejector where the casing is going to hit it is thicker too. They come in the Gen4 trigger housing but you just pull it out and install it in the Gen 2 or 3 housing. Gen 4 trigger housings won't fit in Gen 2 or 3 frames.
Can you get me a pic of one so I can compare something and if you can, measure the length.
C4
Grant I'll send you 2 to play with to see what you think.
Cool!
C4
Please post a pic if you can.
C4
Grant, my photography is weak. I'm not even sure this is relavent to the issues that you've been discussing but marks like these are present on all of my erratically-ejecting Gen.4 Glocks (all .40S&W). My Gen.3 with approximately 4k rounds is absent of any such marks in this area and extracts/ejects reliably and consistently.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/G23RTF002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/G23RTF001.jpg
Doughnut.
No, that is not normal and it should NOT be happening.
The only brass mark that is acceptable will be a streak on the ejection port ramp.
How is the ejection on your gun? Weak, erratic? Without actually seeing your gun shoot i would say you've got a bit of a timing issue as your slide velocity seems to be rather...quick if you're having casings hitting that portion of the port.
What is the history on the RSA in that gun?
Doughnut.
No, that is not normal and it should NOT be happening.
The only brass mark that is acceptable will be a streak on the ejection port ramp.
How is the ejection on your gun? Weak, erratic? Without actually seeing your gun shoot i would say you've got a bit of a timing issue as your slide velocity seems to be rather...quick if you're having casings hitting that portion of the port.
What is the history on the RSA in that gun?
This particular sample is a G22Gen.4. I has the most current RSA for G22s. It came from Glock with an "1882" ejector and dip extractor. From pretty much day one it suffered all the usual Gen.4 stoppages, in-line stovepipes, slide over base, casings to the face, etc. All the ammunition I've used in this gun has been Speer Lawman 165 & 180gr. as well as Winchester Ranger 165gr. FMJ. After a range session it looked like someone poured gold glitter in my pistol due to the amount of brass shavings present.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/1322966156.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/1322966154.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/1322966152.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/doughnut/1322965826.jpg
Later, I bought a G27Gen.4 that had the newest .40 ejector and swapped it into this G22. Ever since the G22G4 has ran great, no stoppages and no casings to my head. I can't say where the casings are landing but they are all ejecting right, over my shoulder. The ejector, at this point, seems to have cleared my issues up, even the amount of brass shavings appears to have lessened. The brass in the previous photo could be from the earlier problematic period before use of the new ejector.
I also have a G23G4 that has a bit of brass in the same location. It has an older RSA and ejector (1882). It does not have a history of stoppages but pelts me with brass about once per mag. I'm considering sending it to Smyrna.
The "hand fitting" term must terribly scare modern day manufacturers and probably with good reason. I bet that most of the old time 1911 shooters here have long known that shaping the Glock ejector would change the ejection pattern. Most likely Smith fears that M&P 9mm accuracy solutions might require some hand fitting. Otherwise, they would have already resolved the issue.
Good research, Grant.
Grant, my photography is weak. I'm not even sure this is relavent to the issues that you've been discussing but marks like these are present on all of my erratically-ejecting Gen.4 Glocks (all .40S&W). My Gen.3 with approximately 4k rounds is absent of any such marks in this area and extracts/ejects reliably and consistently.
Thanks for the pics! The brass hitting the FRONT of the ejection port is as wrong as two boys french kissing! This is how/why the brass comes back and hits you in the face.
I love seeing the brass facing backwards. That means that the case basically did a 180 spin (as it was trapped inside the gun) and the slide came forward. :jester:
C4
The "hand fitting" term must terribly scare modern day manufacturers and probably with good reason. I bet that most of the old time 1911 shooters here have long known that shaping the Glock ejector would change the ejection pattern. Most likely Smith fears that M&P 9mm accuracy solutions might require some hand fitting. Otherwise, they would have already resolved the issue.
Good research, Grant.
As I stated in the beginning of my post, I BELIEVED that by modifying the ejector angle, I could improve reliability and or stop the brass from hitting you in the face. This is most likely true, but in the bigger picture, the height of the ejection port window is just too high IMHO and WILL cause malfunctions in ANY GUN that relies on the next round or magazine follower to push it up high enough to get over the bottom of the ejection port wall.
With this theory in place, keeping your Glock mag springs at their optimal tension strength will increase reliability IMHO.
C4
My gen4 23 (newest rsa with 1882 ejector) had brass markings all over the front of the ejection port, brass to the face, and a couple of the 180 degree FTE's. I had Glock send the new ejector(28926). Put 450 rds through it today with a better ejection pattern, no brass to the face, and no brass on the front of the ejection port.
ETA: Shot 200 rds of Win Ranger today and had brass marks on the front side of the ejection port again.
High Altitude
03-05-12, 23:06
Glock has been using those ejectors for lots of years.
What did glock change in their pistols to need a new ejector?
I wish glock was more up front with their customers about what is going on.
Glock has been using those ejectors for lots of years.
What did glock change in their pistols to need a new ejector?
I wish glock was more up front with their customers about what is going on.
My guess is the SF (short frame) treatment applied to 9mm, then add the new recoil dynamics of the new RSA, then any number of component QC variances and you have a nice tolerance stack brew than caused a big ruckus. The new design of ejector seems to my eyes to be made to close some of the gap in tolerances.
Glock has been using those ejectors for lots of years.
What did glock change in their pistols to need a new ejector?
I wish glock was more up front with their customers about what is going on.
If we are talking about the GEN 3's, it was them switching to the GEN 4 extractor.
With the GEN 4's it was all kinds of stuff.
C4
Do you have any pics and conclusions on lowering the ejection port on the Glock?
Do you have any pics and conclusions on lowering the ejection port on the Glock?
Yes, it is a good idea (especially on the GEN 4's).
C4
Here are my experiences:
My MFR prefix G19 ejects to the same place each time regardless of ammo.
My NAS prefix G19 puts brass in my shirt pocket on a regular basis if using 115gr ammo. It runs fine with 124gr. This gun has also had several stovepipes in it's life.
My NED prefix G17 ejects to the same place each time regardless of ammo. This gun has shot about 7000 rounds with minimal cleaning and zero stoppages.
I'm hoping to get a gen4 soon.
I know this isn't necessarily about Glock. Threads like this help us all to see the forest instead of just the trees.
Thanks!
Ok, I got the new ejectors from Robb (thanks much)!
First, the differences.
It would appear that the latest generation of ejector is bent slightly more to the left (not so much in the center of the pistol). Glock has also put a slight angle on it (towards the ejection port). Golf clap to them on that part.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Repair/Glock/Ejectors.jpg
With that said, I personally do not think that this problem is any ONE thing. There is a complex math problem going on here that takes A LOT of tinkering with different setups in order to get it to run right.
For a second, let’s take the GEN 4 out of play (and its over powered guide rod issues) and focus on the new GEN 3's. From what I am able to tell, if you have an extractor that is bad, it doesn't matter WHAT ejector you have in the gun. To prove this theory, I put a known good extractor in the gun and basically removed 1/4 of the ejectors length and the gun ran like a top! :eek:
I then put the known bad extractor in with the known good ejector (latest version) and the gun kicked brass in my face.
So the ejector is really secondary to the problem and while it WILL add to the problem of brass to the face, it can only do so much to direct brass. I also think that a "tuned" ejector (with a slight upwards angle machined into it helps the brass clear the ejector port).
When testing your GEN 3 or GEN 4 Glock, only put 3-5 rounds in the mag and see how it performs. Function checking these pistols with a full or half mag is irrelevant as the less tension there is on the round BELOW the empty case directly affects where the case ejects to.
When troubleshooting this complex problem, make sure to separate the issues. Meaning, realize when you are shooting an under pressured load with the GEN 4 (and its dual springs), what that malfunction looks like VS a bad extractor.
Final thought. I am simply amazed at how much the spring tension in the mag matters with making these guns run well. I think I am going to put some extra power or CS mag springs in my Glock mags from now one (and or change out of the factory mag springs much sooner than I normally would).
C4
Great findings about the mag springs and testing with <5 rounds. As well the fact that it's a combination of factors and not necessarily any one component.
Serpico1985
03-15-12, 12:21
I'm getting brass contact on the top front of the ejection port and the left side wall. Would rather take my chances at a craps table than try to tell you where they brass is going to go.
http://i41.tinypic.com/i3gh38.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/2u88axs.jpg
- Gen 4 Glock 17
- RVD serial number
- Purchased in November of 2011 through individual officer purchase program.
- Test fired September 2011
- 336 ejector, 042 RSA
My gun has about 1600 rounds through it and has had 2 "glock stovepipes". Ejection is ALWAYS erratic with this gun. I was hoping a new ejector/extractor would fix it but I'm not opposed to sending the slide off to get lowered. It voids the Glock warranty........so what, they won't even acknowledge a problem to begin with so why not? Obviously not an option for a PD or fed agency.
It seems that based on what Randy Lee and now your saying Grant, lowering/changing the ejection port is the correct and best way to fix the problem and the ejector's/extractors are only "band aids" that may or may not work.
Good luck! By the way what do you do after you cut the port to refinish/re-harden? I know its very early in the investigation so to speak but I'm wondering what something like this would cost?
High Altitude
03-15-12, 13:14
I would at least put the new ejector in first.
Serpico1985
03-15-12, 14:11
Hey, no doubt. $10 ejector vs $75-$100+ to send away your gun to have the ejection port lowered. I'm just observing that it seems at this point (which could change and I hope it does) that ejectors and extractors may not be the "universal adapter" fix for the gen 4 glocks.
Heres a question. If you do not consider the RSA, ejector and extractor, are there any other changes to the gen 4 17s that could affect extraction and ejection?
So Grant, based on your theory above, how do you explain the Gen 3 guns that will run fine for 2K rounds, and then suddenly start acting up?
Would mag spring wear/weakening be a possible culprit? I don't think your trials would explain how otherwise reliable guns would start acting up with some (but not a ton) of rounds through them.
I have a personal interest as my G19 (Serial #RGW/March 2011) is just at 2k, and has run like a top to date. I am curious, and somewhat concerned as it gets a little more wear on it.
Grant,
I was about to ask you if extra power mag spring would help at all but you beat me to it. I just got a 3 pack of Wolff springs to try in my cheap Korean mags but I may just try them in some factory mags to see how it affects ejection in my 19.
I would at least put the new ejector in first.
Looking at Serpico1985's ejection pattern, no ejector is going to fix that. There is a MAJOR problem with the extractor.
C4
Hey, no doubt. $10 ejector vs $75-$100+ to send away your gun to have the ejection port lowered. I'm just observing that it seems at this point (which could change and I hope it does) that ejectors and extractors may not be the "universal adapter" fix for the gen 4 glocks.
Heres a question. If you do not consider the RSA, ejector and extractor, are there any other changes to the gen 4 17s that could affect extraction and ejection?
Yes, mag spring tension. If your springs are worn out, this will matter (when you get towards the bottom 5 rounds or so).
C4
So Grant, based on your theory above, how do you explain the Gen 3 guns that will run fine for 2K rounds, and then suddenly start acting up?
Two ideas/theories. First, these reliability issues generally show up around 2000-3500. My first thought is that the extractor is wearing and the angle in which it is grabbing the rim has changed (ever so slightly). My second theory is that the mag spring tension has decreased and is not pushing the case up high enough to get out of the gun.
I spent a lot of time looking at how the extractor contacts the rim of the case today. It is just BARELY touching it and any slight change in this will dramatically change how and where the case come out.
C4
Grant,
I was about to ask you if extra power mag spring would help at all but you beat me to it. I just got a 3 pack of Wolff springs to try in my cheap Korean mags but I may just try them in some factory mags to see how it affects ejection in my 19.
Cool and let us know! Load no more than fix rouds and shoot the gun. Watch where the brass goes. Then change out the springs and try the same thing again and see what happens.
C4
SpookyPistolero
03-15-12, 17:29
Doesn't this make a pretty good case for using the lone wolf slides, with lowered ejection ports?
I don't know the skinny on their extractors.
To editorialize, what the hell is the world coming to when even glocks are going wrong?
Crow Hunter
03-15-12, 20:04
Final thought. I am simply amazed at how much the spring tension in the mag matters with making these guns run well.
C4
Good thing you tested that...
;)
Heavy Metal
03-15-12, 23:33
Grant,
Just to add a data point. I have a Gen 3 G-20 that ejects like a Swiss Watch compared to my Gen 3 9mms (mostly 09 and 10 production with a couple 07's.)
The first thing I noticed about the pistol (G-20) was all the cases going to the right EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EACH TIME!
Good thing you tested that...
;)
LOL, I guess I just never really noticed how important the Glock spring strength is to the reliability of the weapon. No other gun is so reliant on this and kind of took it for granted that it wasn't all that important.
C4
Doesn't this make a pretty good case for using the lone wolf slides, with lowered ejection ports?
I don't know the skinny on their extractors.
To editorialize, what the hell is the world coming to when even glocks are going wrong?
Yes it does.
C4
Interesting post Grant, I've been watching random YouTube video's to watch the ejection patterns of pistols in the same family as Glock. Definetly seems to be an issue with this type of handgun, certainly not as pronounced as Glock, but still interesting none the less.
On my G19, I don't care where the brass lands geographically, but the brass-to-face is highly annoying. On that G19, it only took a couple of hundred rounds before brass started hitting me in the face regularly with the lower power PMC Bronze that I shoot (no malfunctions, however). I did try a 17 lb recoil spring to see if increasing slide speed would make a difference, but all it did was a add few stovepipes. I tried a Lone Wolf extractor, made no difference. I tried hotter ammo (Fiocchi 124 gr)...again, no reduction in brass to face. I've read the various threads on erratic ejection but I see no universal fix for the Glock, even Randy Lee's $60 magic extractor. I don't really even see a consensus on what the problem is. Grant, are you suggesting that modifying the ejection port is about the only way to avoid BTF on the Glocks?
My M&P 9L...I'm not sure I know where the brass lands. All I know is that brass from that pistol never hits me in the face. Although I shoot the Glock well and generally like it, I've about had it with its ejection performance, and rather than screwing around with it further, or sending it off to have the ejection port modified, I have my LGS trying to score a PPQ for me with an eye toward ditching the G19. I appears that that could take awhle...PPQ's seem to be pretty hard to find these days.
Magic_Salad0892
10-07-12, 09:44
FWIW I don't think that magazine spring tension is all that important to the function in these pistols, because Magsz's gun with Randy Lee's improvements (extractor, ejector, and lowered port wall) functions 100% from what he's said with NO magazine in the gun at all, and with him only holding it with two fingers with his weak hand.
I'm not sure how to explain that one.
On my G19, I don't care where the brass lands geographically, but the brass-to-face is highly annoying. On that G19, it only took a couple of hundred rounds before brass started hitting me in the face regularly with the lower power PMC Bronze that I shoot (no malfunctions, however). I did try a 17 lb recoil spring to see if increasing slide speed would make a difference, but all it did was a add few stovepipes. I tried a Lone Wolf extractor, made no difference. I tried hotter ammo (Fiocchi 124 gr)...again, no reduction in brass to face. I've read the various threads on erratic ejection but I see no universal fix for the Glock, even Randy Lee's $60 magic extractor. I don't really even see a consensus on what the problem is. Grant, are you suggesting that modifying the ejection port is about the only way to avoid BTF on the Glocks?
My M&P 9L...I'm not sure I know where the brass lands. All I know is that brass from that pistol never hits me in the face. Although I shoot the Glock well and generally like it, I've about had it with its ejection performance, and rather than screwing around with it further, or sending it off to have the ejection port modified, I have my LGS trying to score a PPQ for me with an eye toward ditching the G19. I appears that that could take awhle...PPQ's seem to be pretty hard to find these days.
My LGS has had two PPQ's in 9mm and .40 sitting in the case for months. I can't say I haven't thought about switching platforms all together with regards to my 19.
My LGS has had two PPQ's in 9mm and .40 sitting in the case for months. I can't say I haven't thought about switching platforms all together with regards to my 19.
Nice. If my LGS had one in stock, I'd already own it. Right now, he tells me all of his distributors are out of stock too.
FWIW I don't think that magazine spring tension is all that important to the function in these pistols, because Magsz's gun with Randy Lee's improvements (extractor, ejector, and lowered port wall) functions 100% from what he's said with NO magazine in the gun at all, and with him only holding it with two fingers with his weak hand.
I'm not sure how to explain that one.
Well, I think that what's happening there is Randy's extractor has more tension on the case as it extracts, so, the empty case is not slipping off the breachface while being extracted..This would explain why it can extract without a mag in the pistol,the extractor dosen't need a mag in place to support the empty as it's being extracted, ejected. Evidently, Randy's extractor is getting a much stronger grip on the empty than the stock extractor does.
So I noticed yesterday with my new 19, that did throw 1 to my face & one over the head of another shooter. Again this is a brand-new gun with ~200 rounds through it. At the end of the day I loaded one in the chamber, dropped the mag & fired & saw the best ejection @ about 3:30 with the case about 6' away. All of the other ejections, with the exception of the two mentioned above were about 4-5 o'clock and 3-4' away. This was curious to me after reading all the threads on the subject. I thought the "problem" guns wouldn't eject without a mag. This was with 115g ammo, haven't put anything else through it.
Has anyone ever filmed or seen close up ultra high speed video of a gen 4 ejecting? I think that footage would provide a huge amount of insight.
G34Shooter
10-07-12, 11:46
Has anyone ever filmed or seen close up ultra high speed video of a gen 4 ejecting? I think that footage would provide a huge amount of insight.
Vuurwapen (sp) blog
So I noticed yesterday with my new 19, that did throw 1 to my face & one over the head of another shooter. Again this is a brand-new gun with ~200 rounds through it. At the end of the day I loaded one in the chamber, dropped the mag & fired & saw the best ejection @ about 3:30 with the case about 6' away. All of the other ejections, with the exception of the two mentioned above were about 4-5 o'clock and 3-4' away. This was curious to me after reading all the threads on the subject. I thought the "problem" guns wouldn't eject without a mag. This was with 115g ammo, haven't put anything else through it.
Well,if you've been following the Glock ejection issue thread, it seems that when new they eject well. Usually, the problems don't start until you get 7-800 rnds on it. But as far as ejecting without a mag you need to try more than one, even my g19, will, out of 10, rnds,manage to eject one or two without the mag..Most however, go down the mag well....
On my G19, I don't care where the brass lands geographically, but the brass-to-face is highly annoying. On that G19, it only took a couple of hundred rounds before brass started hitting me in the face regularly with the lower power PMC Bronze that I shoot (no malfunctions, however). I did try a 17 lb recoil spring to see if increasing slide speed would make a difference, but all it did was a add few stovepipes. I tried a Lone Wolf extractor, made no difference. I tried hotter ammo (Fiocchi 124 gr)...again, no reduction in brass to face. I've read the various threads on erratic ejection but I see no universal fix for the Glock, even Randy Lee's $60 magic extractor. I don't really even see a consensus on what the problem is. Grant, are you suggesting that modifying the ejection port is about the only way to avoid BTF on the Glocks?
Glock GEN 4's had 3 NEW problems and one old problem. The new problems were:
1. RSA
2. Ejector
3. Extractor
Old problem:
1. High ejection port window
It would appear now that the RSA and ejector problems are fixed in the GEN 4 and the Apex extractor should fix the extraction problem.
With that said, Glock pistols are really dependent (more so than ANY other pistol) on the strength of the mag spring to help with ejection. When the mag springs wear out, the highness of the ejection port window really comes into play.
C4
Vuurwapen (sp) blog
What I have yet to see is ultra high speed high def. video with close ups, good lighting and multiple angles, something like the TV show Timewarp, would produce.
Well,if you've been following the Glock ejection issue thread, it seems that when new they eject well. Usually, the problems don't start until you get 7-800 rnds on it. But as far as ejecting without a mag you need to try more than one, even my g19, will, out of 10, rnds,manage to eject one or two without the mag..Most however, go down the mag well....
Yes, I have been following these threads & am aware that the problems seem to appear after new guns begin to wear. I mentioned my example of one ejection w/o mag anecdotally because I found it odd for two reasons. One, as Grant has mentioned numerous times, Glocks rely heavily on mag spring tension assisting ejection & I will take his word on this. Two, a gun that appears to have weak ejection, I saw the strongest ejection in the absence of that assistance. I by no means was suggesting the gun would do that every time w/o a mag. I fully intend to continue to experiment as I put more rounds through the gun to see how it performs.
Last week I installed some Wolfe 10% stronger mag springs in my glock mags..(Gen 3 G19)I can honestly say I saw a small improvement, I got hit only twice..That's after shooting 250rnds..usually it'd be 5-7 times, So I think there's something to it. It'll be interesting to see what happens when I get a Apex extractor in it
Here's the first request for an Apex slide with extractor and springs!
:D:D
http://confessionsofadesigngeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Hell_Yes_at_Pick_Me_Up.jpg
Crow Hunter
10-08-12, 07:59
My M&P 9L...I'm not sure I know where the brass lands. All I know is that brass from that pistol never hits me in the face. Although I shoot the Glock well and generally like it, I've about had it with its ejection performance, and rather than screwing around with it further, or sending it off to have the ejection port modified, I have my LGS trying to score a PPQ for me with an eye toward ditching the G19. I appears that that could take awhle...PPQ's seem to be pretty hard to find these days.
Since you have both you can do this for yourself and see the reason why.
Take some dummy rounds and ease the slide back without a round in the chamber and with a round in the chamber.
You will notice that the M&P ejector is MUCH closer to the breech than the Glock ejector. To the point that the M&P ejector actually presses down the magazine stack a little bit.
With the Glock, when you have weak extractor tension, strong magazine spring and a slow moving slide (weak ammo/strong RSA), the round can "pop" out of the extractor before the ejector can hit it. When that happens the ejection is random based on when/where the ejector hits the round (if at all).
With the M&P the ejector almost hits the extracting case before it can even get fully out of the chamber, especially on a dummy round that has a "bullet" in it making it longer.
The SIg P226 that I am currently babysitting does the same thing.
I don't know why the Glock Ejector is so far back relative to the M&P and Sig P226 that I have compared it to. I don't know if there are other design considerations to that have to be taken into account or not. But that is one of the big reasons why the magazine has such and influence on Glock ejection.
The one thing I have noticed is that the M&P chambering is much more dependent on forward movement speed than Glock. The Glock I was messing with would feed correctly no matter how slowly I fed rounds in. The M&P 9c that I was comparing to would spit rounds randomly and misfeed unless the slide was moving forward rather quickly.
Magic_Salad0892
10-08-12, 08:21
Well, I think that what's happening there is Randy's extractor has more tension on the case as it extracts, so, the empty case is not slipping off the breachface while being extracted..This would explain why it can extract without a mag in the pistol,the extractor dosen't need a mag in place to support the empty as it's being extracted, ejected. Evidently, Randy's extractor is getting a much stronger grip on the empty than the stock extractor does.
This is an extractor issue, where the magazine acts as a band aid. It's not inherant to the design. If it was then Randy's extractor would let cases slip through the magazine well too.
... Right?
Urban_Redneck
10-08-12, 09:15
The "hand fitting" term must terribly scare modern day manufacturers and probably with good reason. I bet that most of the old time 1911 shooters here have long known that shaping the Glock ejector would change the ejection pattern. Most likely Smith fears that M&P 9mm accuracy solutions might require some hand fitting. Otherwise, they would have already resolved the issue.
Good research, Grant.
+1
No files on the shop floor!
IMHO, the move to dimensionally superior MIM parts, and away from stampings, allow (rightly or wrongly) manufacturers to reduce the number of checks during assembly. It's not difficult for me to imagine a former assembly station with 4 bins of parts reject, +, 0, - with the assembler using their best judgement as to which to use for each assembly. With MIM parts there are just two, ready and reject.
WhiteOut correction fluid can be painted on the ejection port to check/track brass contact as it is soft enough to ding easily and cleans up fast.
My $0.02
This is an extractor issue, where the magazine acts as a band aid. It's not inherant to the design. If it was then Randy's extractor would let cases slip through the magazine well too.
... Right?
Well, yes and no..If you've been reading the threads, (and I'm sure you have been) Randy has stated the mag spring has alot to do with extraction (on stock set ups) and the ejection pattern changes as the number of rounds goes down in the mag (less tension) Another part of the problem is that Glock changed the extractor angle in the slide from 90 degrees to 15 degrees in a effort to get a higher ejection angle, And from what Randy has said, when they did this the extractor lost a bit of tension on the case, and actually pushes down on the round in the mag,so, spring tension in the mag becomes much more important, this is also the reason for the 30274 ejector to get the empty case to go out at a higher angle to clear the ejection port wall... Randy changed the claw on his extractor to make up for the 15 degree angle, and get a better grip on the case, and he's using a stronger depressor spring to put more tension on the extractor. I'm thinking now what Glock should have done was to keep the 90 degree extractor, and just lower the ejection port wall..Probably would have solved the problem..
Magic_Salad0892
10-08-12, 12:20
Well, yes and no..If you've been reading the threads, (and I'm sure you have been) Randy has stated the mag spring has alot to do with extraction (on stock set ups) and the ejection pattern changes as the number of rounds goes down in the mag (less tension) Another part of the problem is that Glock changed the extractor angle in the slide from 90 degrees to 15 degrees in a effort to get a higher ejection angle, And from what Randy has said, when they did this the extractor lost a bit of tension on the case, and actually pushes down on the round in the mag,so, spring tension in the mag becomes much more important, this is also the reason for the 30274 ejector to get the empty case to go out at a higher angle to clear the ejection port wall... Randy changed the claw on his extractor to make up for the 15 degree angle, and get a better grip on the case, and he's using a stronger depressor spring to put more tension on the extractor. I'm thinking now what Glock should have done was to keep the 90 degree extractor, and just lower the ejection port wall..Probably would have solved the problem..
IMHO, a stronger extractor, and lower port wall would have solved it, maybe even would permit running a stiffer spring for the 9x19mm guns. They never would have had to go through the spring revisions.
I get what you're saying though. Thanks for the reply.
IMHO, a stronger extractor, and lower port wall would have solved it, maybe even would permit running a stiffer spring for the 9x19mm guns. They never would have had to go through the spring revisions.
I get what you're saying though. Thanks for the reply.
The bad thing is, it would have been stupid simple to do, and only required a slight change in the CNC programing to fix the slide, and possibly some stronger springs..All in all, it would have cost Glock very little to change production...
LOL, I guess I just never really noticed how important the Glock spring strength is to the reliability of the weapon. No other gun is so reliant on this and kind of took it for granted that it wasn't all that important.
C4
Thanks for posting this. I missed your post back in March when this thread was started. I'm off to try some new mag springs to see if I can resolve the 12 o'clock ejection I've been getting when cases glance off of the ejection port wall.
All,
This weekend I had the opportunity to shoot a Gen2 G17 owned by a friend of mine (purchased in the early 90s, he's not sure of exact date). I noticed that the ejection pattern was straight back, and confirmed this while watching others shoot it. Literally the brass was, 9 of 10 times, riding the top of the slide, hitting the rear sights, and falling to the ground. I tried some different ammo (S&B 124, and Speer 115) and this was consistent for all ammo fired.
While I did search (both M4 and the greater Internet), it seems that extraction/ejection issues are mostly confined to more recent Gen3/Gen4 Glocks. My first thought was that it could be a maintenance part that needs to be replaced (he has less than 1k rounds through it, but it's around 20 years old at this point). With my limited knowledge of Glocks, I was hoping for some insight into what I should be looking for and recommending he fix, replace, or adjust.
Thank you for any input.
Not that suprising. All Gens have been known to display less than ideal ejection patterns.
Not that suprising. All Gens have been known to display less than ideal ejection patterns.
That does seem to be the sentiment... however, my understanding based on feedback from this forum that Gen2 Glocks were GTG. Considering the "pattern" is a weak straight back that clangs of the rear sight, I figured a maintenance part is/was to blame.
All,
This weekend I had the opportunity to shoot a Gen2 G17 owned by a friend of mine (purchased in the early 90s, he's not sure of exact date). I noticed that the ejection pattern was straight back, and confirmed this while watching others shoot it. Literally the brass was, 9 of 10 times, riding the top of the slide, hitting the rear sights, and falling to the ground. I tried some different ammo (S&B 124, and Speer 115) and this was consistent for all ammo fired.
I wonder if his gun was one subject to the need for the 6-part upgrade. My Gen 2 G19 was made around that time and had not had it done when I bought it used in '11. Also when did your friend last change out the various springs in his Gen 2, especially the recoil spring? How old are his mag springs? Has he inspected the extractor , ejector, etc to see if there's any noticeable damage?
If his gun needs the 6-part upgrade, I'd do that. If he doesn't know when the springs were last replaced, I'd replace all those. If he's running original mag springs from the '90s, I'd change all those as well. Then I'd shoot it again, with the same ammo, and see if the ejection pattern has improved.
That does seem to be the sentiment... however, my understanding based on feedback from this forum that Gen2 Glocks were GTG. Considering the "pattern" is a weak straight back that clangs of the rear sight, I figured a maintenance part is/was to blame.
Did the gen2 G17 ever get fixed?
I can also confirm that my Gen II G17 always had erratic ejection. It was purchased early '97 and I have fired tens of thousands through it. It's a great gun, never jams, but compared to 40 cal Glocks, it's ejection pattern is more erratic especially with light target loads. I have had casings land behind my sunglasses, burning my eye lid and cheek. Sometimes when I bend down to reload my mag, several empties fall from the top of my boonie hat...My 40 Glocks eject perfect. And, my G20 can put the 10mm empties in a bucket all day long.
eternal24k
06-25-13, 12:23
This is why Randy cut the ejection port on my gun.
Less deflection off of the ramp with the lowered port.
Way more consistent ejection. The new extractor helps a bit too... :p
Can you share a pic?
Off of the top of my head, this is the only picture i have available. There are more but i have to dig them out.
Not the best picture in the world but it will have to do for now.
http://imageshack.us/a/img16/7636/glocks3.jpg
What's the grip tape on the top do?
eternal24k
06-25-13, 14:52
Off of the top of my head, this is the only picture i have available. There are more but i have to dig them out.
Not the best picture in the world but it will have to do for now.
http://imageshack.us/a/img16/7636/glocks3.jpg
Thanks, if you ever find more pics to share I would appreciate it
Thanks. Interesting on the LW slides. I did not realize that they lowered the ejection port.
C4
I have a lone wolf slide with an Apex extractor, still get BTF still have erratic ejection.
What's the grip tape on the top do?
Little bit of extra traction during an over hand rack or during a press check. I live in Florida and i sweat like a pig so everything extra helps. :)
Little bit of extra traction during an over hand rack or during a press check. I live in Florida and i sweat like a pig so everything extra helps. :)
I feel your pain, if I could serrate my entire slide I would. Hot Glocks in Aug. full sun are a real treat. In reference to topic, I can pile on with this tid-bit. BTF or BTbacko'shirt quite frequently with a well worn gen 2 19.
Sucks ass. My 34 does it as well, but its more ammo specific. Aguila 124g is a frequent offender. My 17L never does it but I cant exactly tote that around. Im considering a gen4 g17 with a birthday of 2013...its just odd that im seeing it more and more. Was it there before or is this Baader-Meinhof playing out?
I have a lone wolf slide with an Apex extractor, still get BTF still have erratic ejection.
Is this a 9mm? What Gen frame and have you changed the ejector out?
Is it just me or does choosing a pistol mean picking out the model that least offends you? I think for me that would be a ppq but good luck finding one and hope you enjoy dawsons or three dot night sights.
Can anyone say they're 100% happy with a pistol out there right now? The closest I can say would be an hk45c, but there's no 9 mm that I'm really thrilled with right now.
Is it just me or does choosing a pistol mean picking out the model that least offends you? I think for me that would be a ppq but good luck finding one and hope you enjoy dawsons or three dot night sights.
Can anyone say they're 100% happy with a pistol out there right now? The closest I can say would be an hk45c, but there's no 9 mm that I'm really thrilled with right now.
This is so true. I just got a FNX-45 that I'm liking a lot... but it's going to take Toyota or Honda to unfork the 9mm pistol mess. :p
Glock completely screwed up. BLEW IT! :mad:
I don't think I'd even trust a Toyota 9 mm at this point, it would probably go full auto on you.;)
Is it just me or does choosing a pistol mean picking out the model that least offends you? I think for me that would be a ppq but good luck finding one and hope you enjoy dawsons or three dot night sights.
Can anyone say they're 100% happy with a pistol out there right now? The closest I can say would be an hk45c, but there's no 9 mm that I'm really thrilled with right now.
Very much so. With several Gen 3 and several Gen 4 9mm's with round counts from 1500 to 10K. Out of a dozen purchased since 2010 for three shooters there was just one Gen 3 17 that did brass to the top of the head regularly and replacing the extractor with a years older spare LCI extractor fixed it right up. I was over stocked and sold that one to a friend so I left the nice old steel extractor in it.
For educational purposes I got a Apex Gen 3 extractor and put that in a RTF2 G19. It runs as well with it as it did before it but the consistency of the ejection pattern is quite amazing.
Is this a 9mm? What Gen frame and have you changed the ejector out?
Gen 3 frame, not the new ejector.
Gun started life as a Gen. 3 glock 31 (full size .357 sig), I installed a Lone wolf conversion barrel to 9mm and a 9mm ejector/housing. Kept the .40cal extractor. It ran great this way.
Decided it would be "more reliable" to go dedicated 9mm, and I wanted to build a dedicated light gun using an X300. I wanted the length of the 34, (since the light is this long anyway) with out the open top of the factory 34 slide.
I bought a Lone Wolf 34 Closed top slide, a factory Glock 34 barrel and a Lone wolf extractor. This brought out all the standard BTF, FTE (stovepipes) problems.
Replaced the extractor with the Apex unit when it came back in stock. This made it better, but not totally reliable. New ejector is my next step.
Personally I think inconsistent ammo is an issue, both the occasion light load and thin rim on the casing.
I shoot mostly blazer brass out of it. I have not had problems with the Duty ammo I have put through it, this has only been a limited amount of Underwood ammo loaded in star line brass, with 147gr. Gold dot bullets.
Next step is the new ejector.
I was leery about buying a G17 gen4 hearing about all the issues. I currently have 3 other G17's, 2 gen2' and a gen3. Year of manufacture, very early 1989 Austrian proofed, a 1995 and a 2004 gen3, all three of these guns have never gave me the BTF issue. The gen2's have the most consistent ejection with 3-4 oclock ejection and for the most part so does the gen3, but I do get some eratic ejection with the gen3.
So anyway I did buy a gen4 with a T prefix serial# and so far I have put about 1k rnds through it and to my surprise there is no BTF with good 3-4 oclock ejection. It does have all the current gen4 revisions and so far it has been GTG.
my latest glock 19 Gen 4 starts with STDXXX and it was pretty bad with BTF (probably 1 or 2 each magazine). I put a Gen 4 haley skimmer trigger in it and now I'm getting 4 or 5 per magazine. I wear a hat now to the range to keep the brass from going down my shirt or getting it stuck between my eye pro.
my latest glock 19 Gen 4 starts with STDXXX and it was pretty bad with BTF (probably 1 or 2 each magazine). I put a Gen 4 haley skimmer trigger in it and now I'm getting 4 or 5 per magazine. I wear a hat now to the range to keep the brass from going down my shirt or getting it stuck between my eye pro.
I would not even be wasting money and time dumping ammo through that gun.
Is it just me or does choosing a pistol mean picking out the model that least offends you? I think for me that would be a ppq but good luck finding one and hope you enjoy dawsons or three dot night sights.
Can anyone say they're 100% happy with a pistol out there right now? The closest I can say would be an hk45c, but there's no 9 mm that I'm really thrilled with right now.
Yup. Handguns are a compromise. Always have been.
I think we're entering into an era where a significant breakthrough in handgun design - is going to be required to produce a pistol that can be built to meet modern market expectations, using modern manufacturing materials/processes.
Someone is going to have design a handgun, from the ground-up, to built with MIM steel and injection molded plastic.
Razorhunter
07-01-13, 22:19
Ok guys, so the million dollar question, I posted here in hopes that you guys specifically would advise me on the following so as to help me make the best purchase I can.
If I were to soon purchase a new G19 or possibly G17, what can I look for in hopes of finding a reliable G19? Correct me if wrong, but a Gen3 G19 , from what I gather, seems to be the best best, but what about serial# (age of the Gen3 G19)??? I frequent a couple dealers who MAY? have older gen3's still sitting on the shelf. Is there anything to specifically look for in the G19's serial#?
Is there ANY other advise, or things to look out for when purchasing my first Glock??? I've been an M&P guy til now, but always wanted to try a G19 or G17, but I have to admit, all these FTeject/extract issues I've read about in past months really have me concerned. Thanks for any buying tips or advice you guys are willing to offer.
Ok guys, so the million dollar question, I posted here in hopes that you guys specifically would advise me on the following so as to help me make the best purchase I can.
If I were to soon purchase a new G19 or possibly G17, what can I look for in hopes of finding a reliable G19? Correct me if wrong, but a Gen3 G19 , from what I gather, seems to be the best best, but what about serial# (age of the Gen3 G19)??? I frequent a couple dealers who MAY? have older gen3's still sitting on the shelf. Is there anything to specifically look for in the G19's serial#?
Is there ANY other advise, or things to look out for when purchasing my first Glock??? I've been an M&P guy til now, but always wanted to try a G19 or G17, but I have to admit, all these FTeject/extract issues I've read about in past months really have me concerned. Thanks for any buying tips or advice you guys are willing to offer.
Uh, I have a Gen 3 G19, Serial #TT*****, test fire date of late last year. No BTF or any other problems in over 2K rounds.
Good luck.
Gen 3 Glock 19 test fired April 2012.
http://SSEquine.net/glockbtf.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzmop7PlUxQ)
Finally fixed with an Apex extractor and 30274 ejector, but by then I'd already switched to a PPQ and I'm not going back. The Glock now sits in the back of my safe or in my range bag as a backup.
.
Psalms144.1
07-02-13, 07:23
Ok guys, so the million dollar question, I posted here in hopes that you guys specifically would advise me on the following so as to help me make the best purchase I can.
If I were to soon purchase a new G19 or possibly G17, what can I look for in hopes of finding a reliable G19? Correct me if wrong, but a Gen3 G19 , from what I gather, seems to be the best best, but what about serial# (age of the Gen3 G19)??? I frequent a couple dealers who MAY? have older gen3's still sitting on the shelf. Is there anything to specifically look for in the G19's serial#?Razor - I would NOT recommend buying any Glock 9mm made between late 2009 and the end of 2012. I would suggest that the Gen4 guns have gotten a significantly larger percentage of Glock's attention in hopes of "fixing" the "non-existant issue" (Glock still won't admit there's a systematic problem with those guns from the 2010-12 runs), so, if I wanted an out-of-the-box G19 that I expected to be 100% reliable, I'd get a 2013 Gen4. I'd also go into any purchase with the idea that $70+ will need to be spent on an Apex extractor set if problems do arise.
Regards,
Kevin
Razorhunter
07-02-13, 15:09
Kevin,
Thx for the insight. Two questions remain however. First, HOW exactly can own know if the dealer isn't going to open the box and check the test fire dates? Iow's, is there a specific range of serial# 's to avoid (roughly speaking)? I will of course do my best to check test fire dates (which I assume Glock includes with a single 9mm shell inside each G19 box, just as S&W does?)
Secondly, WHY no mention of 2013 Gen3 G19's?? Is someone about to inform me that Glock is discontinuing the Gen3's this year ??? Just wondering why you seemed to have omitted any talk regarding a 2013 Gen3???
Psalms144.1
07-02-13, 15:21
Razor - no, Glock is NOT discontinuing the 3rd Gen guns, to my knowledge, nor have I heard any rumor to that effect.
The reason I DON'T recommend recent 3rd Gen guns is that, last time I checked, they were NOT shipping with the most "up to date" ejector; and with the string of problems Glock had with their 9mms, I think a "systems approach" to this is the best bet (e.g. newest ejector, newest extractor, newest RSA for Gen4 guns).
Not sure how to get a serial number list that corresponds to dates; though I know that other forums that are Glock-centered have posted serial number date threads - but, like Wikipedia, you have to remember the source of that information...
Best of luck!
...........................
2013 Gen 3 19's were still being made and shipping with ejection issues as of April.
Razorhunter
07-03-13, 07:51
Thx for the help guys. Well I'm still currently undecided. Hell, I may just go back to another M&P45 purchase when funds allow. Glad to have u guys here. Walked into lgs last night. I was treated like a fool when I asked to see the little envelopes with fired shell casing and date stamp on them. The salesman said "ejection issues? What ejection issues? I'm a certified Glock armorer and I haven't heard of ANY such issues!"
I kindly explained to him that Glock isn't admitting it, and even if they were, being an armored doesn't mean you'd necessarily know unless you stay informed anyhow. He didn't speak after that.
Since this thread is also about M&P's, I'll ask this question as well.
Does anyone know if S&W is changing to the new bbl twist rate in all of their M&P's??? Iow's, are all calibers getting the new bbl twist?? I'm wondering how one would be able to spot the newer bbl visually?
I have a Glock Gen4 G17 bought this year. I am not having any of the extraction issue I read about on the internet. My M&P Shield has had no issues either.
Another, probably useless datapoint: last weekend a small statured young lady was introduced to shooting Glocks, using our oldest early 2010 Gen 4 G17. It's got around 10K rounds on it and has yet to have a malf.
More than half the time, the last round's case would bonk her on the forehead. I've never had that happen from that pistol and I shot a good bit with it after she was finished and still didn't see it. There are a lot of weird variables in play.
FWIW she shot the pistol very well for her first foray into pistol shooting, however she had a background in competitive air rifle. She knew what a trigger press was. Still, the smallest hands I've ever introduced to a Glock frame and she handled it quite well.
WickedWillis
07-05-13, 11:52
I am a big fan of the M&P line of handguns, I just got my 1st, a Shield last Tuesday and have not yet had a chance to shoot it. However, I have on 2 occasions rented an M&P 45 full size and both were failing to eject several times per magazine. I shrugged it off and haven't fired one in over a year. Yesterday while out shooting with a large group of people I noticed my brother in laws buddy carrying an M&P. I asked him what caliber and barrel length and he told me it was a full size .45. I asked him if he wouldn't mind me shooting it. So the 1st three rounds were fine, no issues (my group was bad though) and on the 4th round FTE. I asked him about it and he said i needed to push on the extractor lever on the side of the pistol to fix it. This was really odd to me. I fired one more round and It happened again so I gave it back to him. Am I just having really bad luck with these or is this a common problem with the .45 model? I have been wanting a new bedside .45 since I traded my G21 and I really like the M&P but was just curious if I should skip it all together. Thoughts?
I've only shot a few hundred rounds on my full size M&P 45 and so far no FTE or brass to the face.
Swamp Yankee
07-05-13, 13:31
I owned a Fullsize 45 and a Compact 45. Both guns were extremely reliable with strong ejection. The only time I ever experienced a FTF was with some very cheap reloads. I do not recall ever having a problem with extraction. I had close to 900 rounds through the compact and 500 rounds through the full size before I flipped them. I am one of those guys who can't hold on to a good thing.
If this helps anyone:
I rented a glock 19 at a range once, Gen 3, serial started with "S," got BTF quite a few times.
My gen 3 G19 started with "TT..." never had BTF, not even once.
Salamander
07-05-13, 22:15
Can anyone say they're 100% happy with a pistol out there right now? The closest I can say would be an hk45c, but there's no 9 mm that I'm really thrilled with right now.
Yes. Both of my HK P2000's have been flawless. Consistent ejection with a variety of ammo, never a FTE or FTF.
Yes. Both of my HK P2000's have been flawless. Consistent ejection with a variety of ammo, never a FTE or FTF.
P30l and p2000sk have both been perfect.
Really do not understand how anyone would consider Glock at this point when they still refuse to acknowledge/deal with this issue.
They had enough good will in the user community that if they addressed it with a kit, recall, or even a recommendation people would deal with it.
But the blind defense of reps, large dealers, and "armorers" when the problem clearly exists in itself is reason for me to not support them.
It's clear they are pushing product because it will sell. Luckily there are a few dealers locally that will happily point out the pro's and con's of the different platforms.
Too many better options (PPQ, M&P, HK's, etc) at comparable (or better) price.
For what it's worth, our PPQ is still running well even with Tula / WWB. Flawless extraction, been totally reliable.
Too many better options (PPQ, M&P, HK's, etc) at comparable (or better) price.
If you don't want to use a glock then by all means rock on - but I think the above statement is a bit of an exaggeration.
PPQ = decent accurate pistol with a nice trigger, but parts support is almost non-existent and mags are pricey.
M&P = decent pistol with good parts availability and aftermarket support, but may refuse to group even remotely decently beyond 15 yards necessitating buying an aftermarket barrel (which puts you in the same price category as an HK).
HK = P30 is a fantastic pistol with excellent accuracy (some people like the trigger, others hate it), but good luck sourcing any parts and you could buy 3 of most other pistols for the price of 2 of these.
Glock = decent accurate pistol with unrivaled after market support, but you may have to trouble-shoot your pistol for extraction issues.
KiloSierra
07-06-13, 11:28
My M&P 9 and M&P 40 both have consistent ejection with anything other then Blazer brass ammo. Have seen a total of one Glock in my life that had consistent ejection. It consistently ejected to the right and right into the side of my face and head. That was a long qualifying session.
I'm not sure what aftermarket support is required for the HK. Holsters are readily available, several sight options. All the parts you could ever need can be bought on the Internet.
As to the PPQ, holsters maybe a little harder to find, and sights are a little limited, parts are available from earls.
Mags for both can be bought for $10 more then a glock mag
Not sure what other support these pistols need because they work.
I'm not sure what aftermarket support is required for the HK. Holsters are readily available, several sight options. All the parts you could ever need can be bought on the Internet.
...assuming you can find what you need in stock. I had a P30 several years back that was my primary pistol. I ended up selling it because A) places like hkparts.net never had back-up springs in stock and B) when you add in the price of a second back-up pistol, you're throwing down some serious cash.
Not sure what other support these pistols need because they work.
As do my glocks, sigs, etc. As I said in my post, if someone doesn't want to shoot a glock and would rather shoot an HK or PPQ, then absolutely go for it because they are both very solid pistols. But the statement that the HK, PPQ or M&P are the only real or better options at a "comparable" price is erroneous at best.
I wouldn't say they are the only options, but your chances of getting a pistol that runs from the get go seems a lot better at the moment.
I wouldn't say they are the only options, but your chances of getting a pistol that runs from the get go seems a lot better at the moment.
I "like" my P30, and it has been 100% reliable. I do not like the LEM trigger.
But it doesn't do anything my (Gen2 and Gen3) Glocks don't do for at least $300 cheaper. And with a superior trigger.
I'm looking to buy a Gen4 G19 and if that is 100% reliable after a thorough wringing out, then I'm going to ditch the P30.
But it doesn't do anything my (Gen2 and Gen3) Glocks don't do for at least $300 cheaper. And with a superior trigger.
I'm looking to buy a Gen4 G19 and if that is 100% reliable after a thorough wringing out, then I'm going to ditch the P30.
Except work. :D
Actually I planned to go glock, but that $300 difference disappears pretty fast trying to fix one that doesn't work, then selling and buying a second one hoping it is better
If you don't want to use a glock then by all means rock on - but I think the above statement is a bit of an exaggeration.
PPQ = decent accurate pistol with a nice trigger, but parts support is almost non-existent and mags are pricey.
Hmmm, maybe a fair comment on the M2. PPQ/P99 mags are available at $35, not that unreasonable.
Glock = decent accurate pistol with unrivaled after market support, but you may have to trouble-shoot your pistol for extraction issues.
Agreed on aftermarket support, but how much of that is really needed? Needed vs "Nice to have" (Beyond the stuff to fix what Glock should fix at the factory?)
Maybe save $10 on mags? Better sight availability for sure. Local store more likely to have holsters.
For department usage I do think G and SW will provide better support, just a stronger local presence.
So I will agree that if buying parts & accy on demand overrides having a pistol that works out of the box, maybe a Glock may work out.
But for me? I don't want to pay $100+ for parts try to fix problems that the factory should address. Since the G19's and PPQ's are fairly close in price to start with, it means paying a premium for a less reliable pistol.
I don't think any of them are perfect, there are tradeoffs for sure. And lot's of room for personal preference.
It would be great if there was a source for G19's that was rock solid. It would make things simpler for many of us! Buying used is less of an option, the ones I'm seeing are not the value they used to be.
As do my glocks, sigs, etc. As I said in my post, if someone doesn't want to shoot a glock and would rather shoot an HK or PPQ, then absolutely go for it because they are both very solid pistols. But the statement that the HK, PPQ or M&P are the only real or better options at a "comparable" price is erroneous at best.
Having recent gone through the selection process, it's a bit different when you have to assume problems in the Glock. IE: the reoccurring "just replace the ejector and do xyz" stuff.
Which by most tallies adds $100 or more and may or may not address the problem.
If your G is working, that's great, and I'd understand your position. But count yourself lucky, as you cannot repeat that upon demand currently.
Hopefully that will change, but as long as G keeps denying the issue I'm not hopeful.
Having recent gone through the selection process, it's a bit different when you have to assume problems in the Glock. IE: the reoccurring "just replace the ejector and do xyz" stuff.
Which by most tallies adds $100 or more and may or may not address the problem.
If your G is working, that's great, and I'd understand your position. But count yourself lucky, as you cannot repeat that upon demand currently.
Hopefully that will change, but as long as G keeps denying the issue I'm not hopeful.
When I am referring to spare parts, I mean springs and anything else prone to breakage that I need to have on hand to keep pistols running through high round counts.
My considerations are certainly likely different than that of a police department, but my batch of glocks and those of most people I shoot with have all been fine. I did experience BTF on one of my G17's, but a $60 Apex extractor solved that, which still puts me well under the cost of a PPQ, M&P with replacement barrel or a bone stock HK.
Should my G17 not have had this problem from the factory? Absolutely, it shouldn't have. But in the end, I think it just illustrates the point that no pistol is without its drawbacks, be they potential or guaranteed.
Except work. :D
Actually I planned to go glock, but that $300 difference disappears pretty fast trying to fix one that doesn't work, then selling and buying a second one hoping it is better
Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I say ALL my Glocks ever owned have been 100%.
AKA they flat out WORK.
Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I say ALL my Glocks ever owned have been 100%.
AKA they flat out WORK.
Awesome for you. I wasn't so lucky, so I got to waste a bunch of money. Sounds like a lot of other people have had similar experiences.
one of my G17's, but a $60 Apex extractor solved that, which still puts me well under the cost of a PPQ
I guess that is another difference, back in Nov/Dec PPQ's were within $10 locally of 17's and 19's. And neither had much mag availability.
And acknowledged on the small parts aspect, though even in serious PD usage the SW99's were not known for needing much of that type support. (The SW99 frame & assemblies were made in Germany on the P99 line)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.