G22 Malfunction

[167]

Anyone want to try and figure this one out. Been happening quite a bit lately (3 occurances over 500 rounds)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FoDJ4-Axyl4/T-4lhUlZzrI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/jra2AjcfRQ8/s1600/m.1.jpg

[Joe Mamma]

I'll try. I'll assume it's your gun. Did you get the gun new or used? The reason I ask is because parts may have been replaced and those second parts may be causing the problem. Do you know if any parts have previously been replaced? If so, which one(s)?

One easy thing is to check first is the ejector. If possible, remove the slide (as if you were simply field stripping the gun) and compare it to another G22. Does the ejector look bent or broken? Is it loose?

I'll guess and say the problem is most likely with the extractor or extractor spring assembly. Do you know how to detail strip your slide? The problem could be the wrong extractor (or a chipped/broken one), worn extractor spring, worn or incorrect spring loaded bearing.

If you give us some additional information, I (or someone else) will tell you what to look for in those parts.

Joe Mamma

[DocGKR]

This is very common on many Glocks made since 2010 and has multiple factors, including bad extractors and ejectors.

[167]

Gun was bout new direct from Glock. It is a Gen4(can't really tell that from picture). I can detail strip (certified armorer) and all the parts on first glance appear in spec. The only thing that might be due for replacement is the RSA. It was replaced when Glock did the free exchange. Total round count on the gun is around 8k. I will detail strip again tomorrow and compare to another unfired G22.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Classic and now very common Glock extractor failure. Welcome to hell...

[167]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

That is what I was afraid of.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[fuse]

Save us, apex

[Crow Hunter]

Gun was bout new direct from Glock. It is a Gen4(can't really tell that from picture). I can detail strip (certified armorer) and all the parts on first glance appear in spec. The only thing that might be due for replacement is the RSA. It was replaced when Glock did the free exchange. Total round count on the gun is around 8k. I will detail strip again tomorrow and compare to another unfired G22.

Is that 8,000 rounds all on one RSA?

If so, you really need to change it.

I ran one of my 19s up to about 7,000 on one RSA and started getting stove pipes and erratic accuracy. Swapped it out and back to normal. I figure the .40 is going to wear the RSA out faster than 9mm shooting 115gr practice loads. I don't remember the interval for sure but I was thinking it was around 5,000 rounds for a recommended swap.

I would swap to a fresh RSA and check that before I started swapping any other parts.

[167]

That is total on the gun, not the RSA, but I am pretty sure the RSA is due for a change anyway. I am going to detail strip and clean it today, throw in a new RSA and hit the range this afternoon to see what happens.

[Crow Hunter]

That is total on the gun, not the RSA, but I am pretty sure the RSA is due for a change anyway. I am going to detail strip and clean it today, throw in a new RSA and hit the range this afternoon to see what happens.

Oh.

I checked, the recommended replacement interval for 40/.357 is 3,000 rounds, it is 5,000 for 9mm. People have gone a lot longer though.

You could do the RSA check and see if it closes like it should. Mine didn't.

Let us know how it does.

[167]

Yup, I already tried that, it passes the function test.

[Crow Hunter]

Yup, I already tried that, it passes the function test.

May be something else then.

But it is odd that it has been good for 8,000 rounds then suddenly crap out without something broken.

I would definitely go one change at a time.

If the RSA change doesn't fix it, I would be tempted to change it back before changing anything just to make sure the RSA wasn't masking some other problem.

Unless you find something odd in your detail strip.

[Savage Hands]

Save us, apex


AFAIK there are no plans for the .40 extractor.

[JV_]

The problem could be the wrong extractor (or a chipped/broken one)That was my thought too, a chipped one.

[Wayne Dobbs]

While changing a RSA may help function from an overall sense, it has little to do with extraction reliability and/or robustness. I've found over 24 years of shooting, training and armoring Glocks, that the magazine springs have more effect on ejection than much of anything else, as the top round in the stack literally does most of the ejection work. If you don't believe that, chamber a round in your chosen Glock and then remove the magazine before firing that round. You will find that if your gun runs well (as in most of what was made before the 3rd Gen M series serial numbers) the fired case ejects down the bottom of the magazine well instead of out the ejection port. Now try that for 10-50 rounds so you can see a trend. If the gun is running poorly, you will start seeing inline "stovepipe" malfunctions with the fired cases trapping between the breechface and the barrel hood, some of which will be 180 degree reversed in attitude. Rarely will a Glock consistently eject the fired cases out the ejection port without a magazine on board and that should give you some serious pause if the gun is carried to defend your life.

Let me make a really serious statment: Glock extraction and ejection function has been marginal ALL ALONG with the platform! It's just that we've seen them work just well enough on that ragged edge that we haven't really worried too much. When they apparently changed the extractor design during Gen 3 and guns stopped running well, we all sat up and began to take more notice and the problem got lots more attention. The new ejector is a very weak bandaid type fix for some guns some of the time, but it's like giving a cancer patient an aspirin...you may get a bit of short term relief, but the sickness remains. The extractor's design is lacking and the spring system powering the extractor is also lacking. This causes the extractor to lose control of the fired case during the actual extraction from the chamber at different points of the cycle and at different levels of failure to maintain uniform tension on that case. When this happens, the fired case is presented to the ejector at different attitudes and levels of control, resulting in wild ejection patterns, or no ejection at all.

So what to do about this? Randy Lee at Apex Tactical has a prototype extractor and extractor spring that some of us have been beta testing in 9mm Glocks that shows lots of promise. It is a tool steel, EDM machined part and it's tough as woodpecker lips and performs at a level that is where service pistol extractor function should be. Mine is at 2525 rounds without failure and passes the no magazine ejection (out the ejection port) test without problem. It's holding the fired case consistently so that ejection patterns are very consistent and to the location they should be. Will he do a .40 caliber version? Don't know, but I'm sure it's needed, given some of the G22 and G23 function I've seen.

[MDS]

So what to do about this? Randy Lee at Apex Tactical [...]

This seems like the most common way for informed people to begin when answering questions about addressing underlying design issues in common service handguns. (Other than HK, which doesn't count because my blue-collar friends would stop talking to me if I had one. Oh, wait. Maybe the fact that I have is why I have no blue-collar friends? ;))

In all seriousness, why doesn't Lee just design the perfect modern service handgun already? I've only been doing this for a year or two, and I'm already tired of reading about ejector models and HREDs and extractor dips. I went ~300 flawless rounds with my Gen3 G19 today, and was pleasantly surprised. I want to be bored by my hardware again...

/rant off

[MD7305]

My experience with a Gen.4 G22. I bought it NIB in November and for the first few hundred rounds this was the story...
932
933
934
935

I replaced my ejector with the most recent version and all has been well. I do get a random reminder of brass to the forehead but overall it's much better. The original extractor has been okay from what I can tell or atleast it's been flawless with the new ejector. Given, I only have about half the amount of rounds you have through your G22. I haven't replaced my RSA, although its due. It will be intersting to see how a new RSA affects my pistol's reliability. I've been holding my breath because the Gen.4 problems seem to appear out of thin air, some earlier in use and some much higher rounds counts. I hope you get it solved but from my own personal experience, sample of uno, I'd try an ejector if you haven't already.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Every one of those photographs show very serious extractor failures. The fact that your different ejector is helping is a plus, but the fact that this ever happened AND that you're still taking hits to the face reflect a level of performance that is not sufficient to trust your life to.

[MD7305]

Every one of those photographs show very serious extractor failures. The fact that your different ejector is helping is a plus, but the fact that this ever happened AND that you're still taking hits to the face reflect a level of performance that is not sufficient to trust your life to.

Mr. Dobbs, I agree. It's very frustrating to say the least.

[Crow Hunter]

Rarely will a Glock consistently eject the fired cases out the ejection port without a magazine on board and that should give you some serious pause if the gun is carried to defend your life.

Wayne

Which guns have you performed this test on that don't rely on the magazine to eject?

I only have Glocks but I did try it on my brother's Sig P226 and the rounds fell out of the mag well too. (My only other auto doesn't have an ejector at all, the magazine has to be there.;))

I can't visualize a design that could 100% prevent this as the extractor has to be open on the bottom to allow the rim to slide up during loading and without something holding the round up during extraction I would think it would start slipping out of the extractors grip before being struck by the ejector. With the Glock the extractor is very "pointy" and the point is fairly high, if the case moves down much during extraction it is going to hit the chamfered edge and get driven down out the magwell.

I don't know a different way to do this. If the ejector hits before the case is completely extracted it wouldn't be able to eject live rounds. Unless the ejector was possibly spring loaded and incorporated into the breech face (like many rifles).

Maybe a much stronger extractor spring and a more aggressive claw on the extractor. But a stronger spring might start acting like a frozen extractor and cause stove pipes as well.

Maybe an ejector that hits lower on the case?

My brother has several other designs of automatics, next time I am back home, I think I will try it out and see what the others do.

FWIW I have 4 G19s. 2 older with non-dip and 2 newer with the dip. The "dip" ones eject out of the port 75% of the time. The old ones always dump rounds down the magazine well.

I don't have that many rounds on the newer guns but they eject the same as my others.

I would be interested to hear the differences.

[Crow Hunter]

I just thought about something else, not directly related to the OP. But tangentially related. Those of you who have brass throwing Glocks and also non-brass throwing guns. Have you ever tried slipping a fired case between the breech face and the extractor claw to see how loose it is?

I wonder if having a claw that isn't pulling the case tight against the face could make the ejection inconsistent?

Just something that came to me as I was walking the 1/4" mile to the bathroom.

I'm going to check mine sometime this afternoon. Of course, it is my wife's birthday so maybe tomorrow. ;)

[Wayne Dobbs]

Crow Hunter,

Interesting that the Sig 226 you tested failed that test, because the two 226s and one 228 I've run it on all passed. My two M&P9FS and one M&P45FS pistols also perform well in that testing, which is admittedly, a tough standard.

You are clearly touching on some of the critical issues of proper and robust extractor function: hook engagement area, tension, hook geometry and physical positioning of the extractor in relation to the slide and breechface from a design and manufacturing viewpoint. I think that there is likely more guesswork and TLAR standards ("that looks about right") than we would like or the manufacturers would admit on some of these guns. It's also a well known fact that a manufacturer will institute a change of a component without adequate testing or consultation of end users. If we are somebody who will shoot the gun 200 rounds during our lifetime, that's no big deal. If we are using the weapon to defend ourselves and/or are shooting the gun that much in a week, then problems mount rapidly.

The bottom line is that the extractor should NOT lose control of a fired case during the extraction cycle and should present that case to the ejector face in a consistent fashion every time, given appropriate ammuntion choices. If it is losing control of the fired case, there is no way to assure that the ejector will get to do its job and that reliable function will occur. To make things even tougher, in the majority of popular service pistol designs, the extractor ALSO controls feeding from the magazine into the chamber. This is called a "controlled feed design" and Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Beretta and others operate on that principle. If the extractor is failing during the extraction cycle from some deficiency, just how well do you think it's handling that critical feeding task? Just because we are seeing guns "getting away" with marginal function (as indicated by simple testing methods) doesn't mean we should accept it at ANY level for a duty/service weapon, but many clearly are.

I realize that focusing on one test can skew things to some degree, but sometimes one test gives you a very efficient way of gauging how well a design has been thought out and implemented. This single test quickly indicates how robust (IOW, how consistent over a range of conditions) the extractor function is on a particular pistol. And, when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel with a particular platform and caliber that does pass the test, it makes it even less justifiable to continue to accept marginal, or even clearly unacceptable performance.

[Crow Hunter]

Crow Hunter,

Interesting that the Sig 226 you tested failed that test, because the two 226s and one 228 I've run it on all passed. My two M&P9FS and one M&P45FS pistols also perform well in that testing, which is admittedly, a tough standard.

You are clearly touching on some of the critical issues of proper and robust extractor function: hook engagement area, tension, hook geometry and physical positioning of the extractor in relation to the slide and breechface from a design and manufacturing viewpoint. I think that there is likely more guesswork and TLAR standards ("that looks about right") than we would like or the manufacturers would admit on some of these guns. It's also a well known fact that a manufacturer will institute a change of a component without adequate testing or consultation of end users. If we are somebody who will shoot the gun 200 rounds during our lifetime, that's no big deal. If we are using the weapon to defend ourselves and/or are shooting the gun that much in a week, then problems mount rapidly.

The bottom line is that the extractor should NOT lose control of a fired case during the extraction cycle and should present that case to the ejector face in a consistent fashion every time, given appropriate ammuntion choices. If it is losing control of the fired case, there is no way to assure that the ejector will get to do its job and that reliable function will occur. To make things even tougher, in the majority of popular service pistol designs, the extractor ALSO controls feeding from the magazine into the chamber. This is called a "controlled feed design" and Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Beretta and others operate on that principle. If the extractor is failing during the extraction cycle from some deficiency, just how well do you think it's handling that critical feeding task? Just because we are seeing guns "getting away" with marginal function (as indicated by simple testing methods) doesn't mean we should accept it at ANY level for a duty/service weapon, but many clearly are.

I realize that focusing on one test can skew things to some degree, but sometimes one test gives you a very efficient way of gauging how well a design has been thought out and implemented. This single test quickly indicates how robust (IOW, how consistent over a range of conditions) the extractor function is on a particular pistol. And, when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel with a particular platform and caliber that does pass the test, it makes it even less justifiable to continue to accept marginal, or even clearly unacceptable performance.

The 226 in question is a Blackwater edition and belongs to my brother. I only did 2 or 3 or so rounds, maybe a larger sample size would be different? I was also using WWB which I have noticed have thinner rims than UMC or Speer. He actually just showed up while I was testing my 4 Glocks and asked what I was doing. So I tried his too. I assumed it was normal although I though it was odd that the newer Glocks I have will eject while the older ones won't.

Will those guns you mentioned hold a fired case onto the breech face with just the extractor tension?

I am going to try it on my Glocks when I get home tonight just for giggles, even if it is my wife's birthday.:D

[Wayne Dobbs]

Will those guns you mentioned hold a fired case onto the breech face with just the extractor tension?:D

Yes, they do and will in fact hold a loaded round in that manner. That is another quick test of extractor function/fitting, but I've run across some guns that will pass it that don't necessarily run well. This test does not check for consistent tension while the gun is actually functioning, only a static test of how much tension exists as the part is fitted to the pistol in question.

[Dagga Boy]

"So what to do about this? Randy Lee at Apex Tactical has a prototype extractor and extractor spring that some of us have been beta testing in 9mm Glocks that shows lots of promise. It is a tool steel, EDM machined part and it's tough as woodpecker lips and performs at a level that is where service pistol extractor function should be. Mine is at 2525 rounds without failure and passes the no magazine ejection (out the ejection port) test without problem. It's holding the fired case consistently so that ejection patterns are very consistent and to the location they should be."

Wayne has been doing a great job of taking this testing on with unbelievable dedication. He is also working with my "Spawn of Satan" FDE Gen 3 G-19 that has about the worse case I have ever seen of extraction issues, and it looks like it may have been cured of its possession by the devil at this point. Now that I have returned to Texas and continued with our weekly training regimen, testing various guns extraction has become sort of a regular thing. I am spending a good amount of time standing next to DetWD watching extraction patterns.

As an interesting note, I returned from living in Arizona the last couple of months with a P30L with a TLG LEM. The gun is filthy and unlubricated (which drives DetWD nuts, but is how I like to do initial reliability testing). The last drill I did on Friday at the end of the day with a hot, dirty, and dry P30L is to fire 45 rounds back to back without a magazine in place. No malfunctions of any kind, and every round sailed out of the ejection port positively and consistently. This gun has passed its initial reliability testing and is now ready for prime-time as my first line with its companion P30. It is now clean, lubed and in the carry rotation.

[Munson]

So when is this apex extractor going to be available? After about 23K rounds with only 4 malfunctions (2 of which were bad ammo), I had 2 fail to extracts just like the above picture today. Both were fired cases turned around backwards. They happened about 100 rounds apart from each other. This is a Gen 3 G19 OD. I've pulled it out of carry use until I get the problem resolved. Unlike alot of the above posts, I have never seen erratic ejection patterns. This thing has ran pretty flawless for many years and a pretty high round count.

[Savage Hands]

Mid September

[Nephrology]

So when is this apex extractor going to be available? After about 23K rounds with only 4 malfunctions (2 of which were bad ammo), I had 2 fail to extracts just like the above picture today. Both were fired cases turned around backwards. They happened about 100 rounds apart from each other. This is a Gen 3 G19 OD. I've pulled it out of carry use until I get the problem resolved. Unlike alot of the above posts, I have never seen erratic ejection patterns. This thing has ran pretty flawless for many years and a pretty high round count.

When is the last time you changed the RSA? With that many rounds, the RSA is bound to be going sooner rather than later, assuming you haven't swapped it out recently.

Not to say there aren't other ethings possibly at play, but let's start there first.

[Munson]

When is the last time you changed the RSA? With that many rounds, the RSA is bound to be going sooner rather than later, assuming you haven't swapped it out recently.

Not to say there aren't other ethings possibly at play, but let's start there first.

It was changed out about 5k rounds ago. I believe its recommended to change it out after about 3-5K rounds so maybe that could be the problem. I am going to drop a new extractor in there and see if that helps out also. Thanks for the help

[Chuck Haggard]

More time later for a better post, but with the 3rd gen Glock 40s you want to swap the RSA out every 3000 rounds max, 2000 rounds is more gooder.

I have seen more problems from worn RSAs in G22s than anything else.