Extraction test

[JodyH]

In the P30 thread there's an interesting "test" of good extraction/ejection.

In some serious testing that we did on P30 extractor function we found what all service pistols should be providing: consistent, excellent (and I should say perfect) function. In one test segment, we did 75 consecutive test shots with no failures and consistent ejection to the same spot. The test is conducted with a loaded chamber and no magazine on board. The shot is fired and the extraction/ejection performance is noted. The fired case should eject OUTSIDE the pistol and to a relatively consistent location. They should NOT eject down the magazine well or trap between the breech face and barrel hood. That's what should happen. The fact is that most of the popular polymer guns don't do this and are in fact running on the ragged edge with regard to extractor/ejector function. Go and try your favorite one out and see what you experience. It's not confidence inspiring.
I think it would be interesting to see what guns "pass" this test and which ones "fail".

The "test":
Chamber a round from the magazine. Remove magazine and fire the chambered round. Note the ejection location and consistency. Repeat enough times to establish a pattern (or lack thereof).

Here's my results so far:
H&K P2000SK 9mm: 10 rounds fmj, all extracted and ejected consistently 5' to my 4 o'clock.
H&K HK45C: 10 rounds fmj, all extracted and ejected consistently 5' to my 4 o'clock.
Kahr PM9: 7 rounds fmj, all extracted and ejected consistently 3' to my 3-4 o'clock. This pistol has a Wolff +10% recoil spring.
S&W Shield 9mm: 8 rounds fmj, all extracted and ejected to my 3-5 o'clock but distance was erratic, anywhere from dribbling out to 5'.

All ammo was Winchester "value pack".

Edit to add reliability data:
P2000SK: 5k+ rounds with zero malfunctions.
HK45C: 2k rounds with zero malfunctions.
PM9: 2k+ rounds with zero malfunctions.
Shield: <1k rounds with zero malfunctions.

[ToddG]

I'd suggest folks also provide as much data (quantitative, not qualitative) about the guns' prior long term reliability as possible. This would allow us to draw some conclusions about how good a determinor of reliability this test actually is.

[Tamara]

I can't get this test to work with my LWS32. :confused:


;)

[JodyH]

I can't get this test to work with my LWS32.
Stick your finger in its butt.

[GJM]

I essentially did this test with a G4 17, current production 226, and a P30, along with shooting all the pistols with two fingers/one hand as loosely as I could, and all three pistols ran.

[JodyH]

Does "ran" mean they ejected all rounds out of the ejection port into a consistent pile, or they all managed to put brass on the ground?
I haven't done this "officially" with my 2nd gen Glock 19 yet, but my recollection from times past is most of the rounds dropped through the mag well.

[Tamara]

Stick your finger in its butt.

I was being a smartass (shocking, I know!) I don't actually have a Seecamp.

(For those scratching their heads at the above by-play, I just happened to recollect that the little Seecamps and their clones use the next round/mag feed lips as the ejector.)

[ToddG]

(For those scratching their heads at the above by-play, I just happened to recollect that the little Seecamps and their clones use the next round/mag feed lips as the ejector.)

As do plenty of other guns even if it's by happenstance rather than design. That's why I'm skeptical of the test's overall ability to determine reliability. How a gun works when it's missing a piece (magazine) doesn't really test how it runs when fully assembled.

Is poor/erratic ejection an indicator of trouble? Yes. But if you remove the magazine from the gun, is that poor/erratic ejection being caused by something bad (bad ejector, bad extractor, bad geometry, bad fitment, etc.) or is it just happening because the magazine is missing?

If someone told me my car wouldn't start unless someone was sitting in the driver's seat I don't know that I'd consider that a major reliability problem.

[Tamara]

As do plenty of other guns even if it's by happenstance rather than design. That's why I'm skeptical of the test's overall ability to determine reliability.

It seems to me that, within the overall scope of a modified-Browning short recoil tilting-barrel design, a bit of breechface slop and an extractor that pivots over a relatively long arc are cheap and easy design aids to feed reliability, even if they'd directly contribute to erratic ejection patterns.

[DBLAction454]

USP45 BC date code
5 rounds Blazer Alum 230gr. Extracted @ 3-4 o'clock 4-5ft.

History: Gun had 4 FTF within the first 400 rounds of use but FTFs were only with one magazine which was an older used one. Attempts to intentionally jam the gun by limp-wristing with the newer mags that came with the USP NIB all failed. Mag spring has since been changed and used consistently for the next 2,990 rounds (along with the other original mags) and the gun has not had a stoppage since.

3,390 fired rounds total


-DBLAction454

[GJM]

Does "ran" mean they ejected all rounds out of the ejection port into a consistent pile, or they all managed to put brass on the ground?
I haven't done this "officially" with my 2nd gen Glock 19 yet, but my recollection from times past is most of the rounds dropped through the mag well.

I didn't measure/plot, but I noticed no material difference between how far the the G4 17, 226 and P30 pistols ejected the case without the magazine in the pistol. Since I don't routinely fire the pistol without a magazine, I was more interested in the next test I did -- lying on my back, and firing each pistol right and left hand only, holding the pistol as lightly as I could without dropping it. All three pistols ran 100 per cent. (Didn't try the test on a G19, as I shoot the 17.)


As do plenty of other guns even if it's by happenstance rather than design. That's why I'm skeptical of the test's overall ability to determine reliability. How a gun works when it's missing a piece (magazine) doesn't really test how it runs when fully assembled.

Is poor/erratic ejection an indicator of trouble? Yes. But if you remove the magazine from the gun, is that poor/erratic ejection being caused by something bad (bad ejector, bad extractor, bad geometry, bad fitment, etc.) or is it just happening because the magazine is missing?

I am with Todd, and would want to see some correlation between the no magazine test and actual reliability. I think shooting the pistol with one hand/held lightly is a valid test, though.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Lightly/awkwardly holding (especially support hand operation) is a great test of operational reliability without doubt. The no magazine test that I wrote of and have used extensively is designed to do one thing and that is to see if the extractor is maintaining control over a fired and ostensibly extracted case until it is presented to the ejector's "nose" for ejection. It is also testing the consistency of the presentation attitude of the fired case to the ejector. While I agree that it is artificial in some respects, it is a very telling examination of a service pistol.

GJM's pistols are clearly doing well, which is not what I've seen from quite a few Glocks over the past few years. Most of them routinely dropped cases down the magazine well. They didn't eject the case - they LOST the case from the extractor. What this process shows is that most Glocks "eject" fired cases with the feed stack in the magazine. This is reinforced by the fact that fresh magazine springs give better ejection of fired cases than do worn magazine springs. While I realize that we see typically decent performance reliability from lots of these guns, the fact that the critical components of extractor and ejector aren't doing their designed jobs doesn't inspire any confidence no matter how you try to minimize it. The fact that Randy Lee has an extractor that generally solves that problem tells you that there is a problem of extractor function in the guns.

And yes, Todd, the test has been indicative of either excellent or marginal function in several guns I've run it on. It's also been correlated very closely on a group of over 50 G-19s that I watched in service as dedicated training guns. They started showing poor functional reliability by displaying failures to extract and eject on a regular basis. They then uniformly failed this "acid test". While it's a tough test, I feel it's use is valid to see just how robust extractor function truly is on a service pistol.

[ToddG]

That's the useful data: how a gun did in this test AND its actual "normal" performance.

[Wayne Dobbs]

That's the useful data: how a gun did in this test AND its actual "normal" performance.

Agreed. Also, the guns that passed the no magazine extractor test have ALL run with excellent results.

[GJM]

Wayne (and others), do you feel like the Glock 19 has less robust extraction/ejection than a 17, as anecdotally, in reading reports of Glock problems, there seem to be more 19's involved. If so, do you think it has to do with greater slide velocity with the 19 or something else? What is interesting is, when I watched YVK shoot his 19, the ejection pattern was inconsistent -- but that 19 is up to 15 or 18,000 rounds without single stoppage/malfunction.

I have a number of Gen 4 17's, all running great, and will try to run the no magazine test on all of them in future range sessions, to see if they match up with the 17 I tested.

Wayne, is it your thinking, that a Glock that runs reliably will also consistently pass the no magazine extraction/ejection test?

I am over 10,000 rounds thru a handful of Gen 4 17's since April without a single stoppage/malfunction/breakage, and a similar number of rounds thru my new manufacture Sig pistols in the four months preceding April with the same result, so maybe I just have good luck.

[JAD]

, so maybe I just have good luck.
That luck appears to be S&W proof.

I have always assumed that the lesser reliability attributed to Commanders is due to their lesser over travel. I've never looked into it hard since I'm on my fifth Commander and they all run. That could be a place to look, though, if 19s are indeed more problematic than 17s.

[GJM]

In light of this thread, I decided to gather some data by testing a number of Glock pistols as to whether they ejected the case out of the ejection port or down through the mag well, when fired without a magazine. At the end of our practice session, I enlisted my wife to observe so as to verify results as to whether the pistol ejected the case out or down.

All tests fired multiple rounds of Federal AE 147, and results were uniformly consistent (as in the pistol either ejected the case out the ejection port or down the mag well, but not both ways.)

Gen 4 19, serial # prefix SAS with Apex extractor, ejected empty cases out the ejection port

G4 17, serial # prefix VAC, stock extractor, ejected empty cases out the ejection port

G4 17, serial # prefix UAR, stock extractor, ejected empty cases out the ejection port

G4 17, serial # prefix UMX, stock extractor, ejected empty cases out the ejection port


Gen 3 19 serial # prefix SVX , stock extractor, ejected empty cases down the mag well

Gen 3 19, cut to 26 butt size, serial # prefix SPYS, stock extractor, ejected empty cases down the mag well

Gen 3 17, serial # prefix SVS, stock extractor, ejected empty cases down the mag well

Gen 3 34 (my wife's pistol) serial prefix #RNT, stock extractor, ejected empty cases down the mag well

Next I tested my Gen 4, G22 with the KKM barrel, prefix # UPH, and Double Tap 200 grain hard cast. It ejected the cases down the mag well like a Gen 3. Occasionally, the case ended up as a stove pipe. Repeated with Ranger 180 Bonded with the same result. More disturbingly, I then fired some rounds holding the pistol as lightly as possible, with the magazine in, and experienced stoppages. Since this is my AK carry pistol in the field, I have to do some more testing with the stock barrel, right away, and am pulling out my .44 in the mean time.

I would never have guessed the G4 19/17's would have uniformly ejected empty cases out the ejection port and that the Gen 3 pistols would all have gone down the mag well, since Glock generally got the rap for screwing things up with the Gen 4. Since I prefer the Gen 4 pistols anyways, I am not inclined to replace the stock extractors in the Gen 3 pistols with Apex extractors.

I plan to do similar testing with my HK P30 .40 and a Sig 229 in .40. Unfortunately, I am not comfortable shooting hard cast in the HK barrel, and my 229, which should be fine with hard cast, is in the lower 48.

[Slavex]

I had it explained to me that modern semi autos magazines are designed to be a part of the extraction/ejection mechanics. Either the next round or follower, or even the mag lips, keep the extracting case up and in the right position for the ejector to hit it. I don't know if that's true, and it's a design thing, but after watching a Glock rep explain the same thing Wayne is talking about, it sure seems to be. I'll run this test at class this Friday if I can and report back on the results. I have done this with my own guns and both my Glock 17 and 19 often stove pipe, or eject down the magazine well with the mag removed. My CZ's all eject cleanly although not to the same spot as reliably as they do with a mag in. My Berettas are hit and miss with the Cougar being more reliable than my 92s and 96s. My Tanfoglio runs the same as my CZs. My Desert Eagle .50 however stovepipes regularly with no mag inserted, worse than the Glocks.
I was also told that the reason for detonations with .40 S&W when extracting a live round with no mag in the gun is due to the same issue, in 1911s, the round doesn't stay up in the breachface and twists, allowing the primer to strike the ejector.

[GJM]

Just occurred to me that the difference between Gen 3 and 4 ejection might be related to the different design of the 5 digit Gen 4 9mm ejector?

[justintime]

My g3 glock 19 successfully passes this test, however it's my only glock that had experienced significant fte issues In competition. My gen 2 g17 which has run flawless is about 50/50.

[Jay Cunningham]

I'm not sure how useful this test is on guns with claw type extractors vs. 1911 spring steel extractors. I'm kind of thinking it might be apples/oranges?


Edited to add: Understanding the 1911 Extractor Test by Tim Lau (http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=131)


Recently, there has been a bit of discussion on the 1911 “Extractor Test” and it became clear that many, if not most, don’t understand how to interpret the results or how it applies to 1911 function and why the test is not applicable to most modern service pistols.


This test is designed specifically to test the extractor function in 1911 pistols. Let me repeat: This test is designed specifically to test extractor function in 1911 pistols. It tells you if your extractor is at 100% function or not. If the pistol fails this test, it is not at 100% function. This is significant for two big reasons:

1. The internal extractor design of the 1911 relies on leaf spring tension, which is highly variable. Depending on the materials used by the manufacturer, and the service cycle of the pistol, the 1911′s internal extractor is prone to lose tension and is dependent on a skilled assembler for proper setup. Failing the extractor test indicates that at best, the extractor is only working marginally. Should the extractor have any less tension, the gun will stop working altogether.

2. A marginal extractor has a less than optimal grip on the case rim during extraction, and in a 1911, the case will be pulled into the feed lips of the empty magazine, creating the stoppage in the photo above. The feed lip geometry and concave or flat magazine follower of the 1911 magazine makes the 1911 more prone to this than any other modern service pistol. It is a bear to clear, and destroys your magazine as it will permanently deform your feed lips.

Does the test apply to modern service pistols?

Some shooters have noted that quality modern pistols will not pass this test. This is not as much of an issue as with the traditional 1911 for the following reasons:

1. The coil spring setup of the modern external extractor is not prone to loss of tension like the leaf spring setup of the internal 1911 extractor. Once a pistol is set up from the factory, what you get (in terms of extractor function) on day one is what you will get until something breaks.

2. The feed lip and follower geometry of modern service pistols do not make them prone to having the empty case dragged into the feed lips should the extractor lose grip on the case rim during extraction.

[BLR]

My comments in bold, directed at no one in particular, but as a jump off point... (Taken from previous post)

"Recently, there has been a bit of discussion on the 1911 “Extractor Test” and it became clear that many, if not most, don’t understand how to interpret the results or how it applies to 1911 function and why the test is not applicable to most modern service pistols.
This test is designed specifically to test the extractor function in 1911 pistols. Let me repeat: This test is designed specifically to test extractor function in 1911 pistols. It tells you if your extractor is at 100% function or not. If the pistol fails this test, it is not at 100% function. This is significant for two big reasons:

1. The internal extractor design of the 1911 relies on leaf spring tension, which is highly variable I don't agree, but I won't argue. I believe "pre load" is the term he was looking for, but let us move on. Depending on the materials used by the manufacturer, and the service cycle of the pistol, the 1911′s internal extractor is prone to lose tension and is dependent on a skilled assembler for proper setup (Just how variable are we talking? I haven't seen this to be the case, but ok. What is the range? What are the materials? How do we know the materials are different? Blanket statements like this are dubious in my experience. Failing the extractor test indicates that at best, the extractor is only working marginally. Should the extractor have any less tension, the gun will stop working altogether. (Again, based on what? What is the premise? Hypothesis? How much force should be applied on the case rim? How do you quantify it? Deflection, assuming a fixed steel and hardness?

2. A marginal extractor has a less than optimal grip on the case rim during extraction, and in a 1911, the case will be pulled into the feed lips of the empty magazine, creating the stoppage in the photo above. How is this different than any other Browning tilt bbl design? The feed lip geometry and concave or flat magazine follower of the 1911 magazine makes the 1911 more prone to this than any other modern service pistol. Ok. Again, based on what? It is a bear to clear, and destroys your magazine as it will permanently deform your feed lips. Uh, ok. Wasn't there, so won't argue.

Does the test apply to modern service pistols?

Some shooters have noted that quality modern pistols will not pass this test. This is not as much of an issue as with the traditional 1911 for the following reasons:

1. The coil spring setup of the modern external extractor is not prone to loss of tension like the leaf spring setup of the internal 1911 extractor. Well, I'll point to the test Ned C. did way back when pistolsmith.com was the happening place for 1911 smiths. Couple that with as low of a strain as is seen by the extractor...WELL below the fatigue elastic limit, I'll take exception. Evidence please.Once a pistol is set up from the factory, what you get (in terms of extractor function) on day one is what you will get until something breaks.

2. The feed lip and follower geometry of modern service pistols do not make them prone to having the empty case dragged into the feed lips should the extractor lose grip on the case rim during extraction. Again, what's the difference? Why? What makes this statement true? How was this determined?

Just for arguments sake, how is this test different from the "holds a loaded round by extractor pre load with the slide off" test?"

[WDW]

Gen 4 Glock 23 .40, OD Green

180gr PMC Bronze FMJ

Brass was literally thrown across the shooting lane. Exhibited consistent, strong extraction & ejection w/magazine removed. Test passed I supposed. I fired 26 rounds that way.
http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab217/10mm4me/image_zpsc2d4ede4.jpg (http://s865.photobucket.com/user/10mm4me/media/image_zpsc2d4ede4.jpg.html)

[GJM]

I just did some more testing, with my primary G4 G22 and another similar vintage G4 G22, with its KKM and the OEM barrel. Both G22's, regardless of KKM or OEM barrel, eject a case down the mag well, when fired without a magazine, occasionally stove piping. I also tested shooting them with one hand, and a light grip. If I held onto the pistol at all, the pistols functioned.

[WDW]

I just did some more testing, with my primary G4 G22 and another similar vintage G4 G22, with its KKM and the OEM barrel. Both G22's, regardless of KKM or OEM barrel, eject a case down the mag well, when fired without a magazine, occasionally stove piping. I also tested shooting them with one hand, and a light grip. If I held onto the pistol at all, the pistols functioned.

It's weird that my G23 behaved so differently than your G22. I wonder why that is.... interesting.

[JHC]

Only a few of our dozen or so Glocks would eject a case normally without the mag. Except the one I experimented with an Apex extractor. It does over and over. All these pistols have run well 1K - 10K rds. I can't get too worked up about it.

[ST911]

In discussions on extraction elsewhere, others smarter than me have offered that this extraction test isn't particularly valid outside of 1911 types. I'm not an engineer and I don't know either way. It seems like it's telling us something, but whether or not it's useful info?

I do know that in guns I've tried it in, almost all Glocks, there was no apparent correlation between reliability of the gun and whether or not the gun ejected brass out of the empty magwell. Off the top of my head... I have a gen3 G21SF that will eject the empty out of the bottom 100% of the time regardless of ammo. It will not leave the ejection port at all. Yet, it is without stoppage for a few thousand rounds. I tried other G21s about that time and found similar data, even if they didn't eject out the bottom at the same rate.

Some .40s and 9mms across generations will eject through the magwell at various rates, yet are still boringly reliable.

In a specific demonstration, I fire various exemplar or student guns one-handed with the gun simply resting on my hand. No stoppages that I can recall.

Perhaps I don't know what I don't know about what I'm seeing?

[Clusterfrack]

The "test":
Chamber a round from the magazine. Remove magazine and fire the chambered round. Note the ejection location and consistency. Repeat enough times to establish a pattern (or lack thereof).


Gen 4 Glock 34: Passed test. Cases ejected ~3' at 4:00. Ammo was 124gr Precision Delta FMJ over 4.6 gr Solo 1000 at 1030fps.

[GJM]

Passed test..

Based on comments here and elsewhere, I am not sure now what the definition of "passed" is, and what it might mean. Think I will go back to more pressing matters, like worrying about the national debt, or other things I can't control. :)

[Clusterfrack]

Based on comments here and elsewhere, I am not sure now what the definition of "passed" is, and what it might mean. Think I will go back to more pressing matters, like worrying about the national debt, or other things I can't control. :)

Sorry--here are the details.

G34 Gen 4. Magazine out. Fired 5 rounds freestyle and 3 rounds dominant hand only, 2 rounds nondominant hand only. All cases ejected out the ejection port, in the normal 4:00 direction, and landed about 3' away from my position more or less in the pile of other brass shot with magazine in.

Good luck on the national debt...

[GJM]

Sorry back to you, I wasn't trying to shoot the messenger. Rather, it seems some Glock pistols eject down the mag well and others out the port (when shot without a magazine), and other than one comment earlier in the thread, I am hearing that this is a 1911 specific test.

[Clusterfrack]

Sorry back to you, I wasn't trying to shoot the messenger. Rather, it seems some Glock pistols eject down the mag well and others out the port (when shot without a magazine), and other than one comment earlier in the thread, I am hearing that this is a 1911 specific test.

Roger that and no worries. I guess if you shoot the messenger, the mag has to be out?

[Clusterfrack]

More data:
G26 Gen 4. Federal 124 gr HS +p+.
Mag inserted, 2 hands or 1 hand: good ejection at 4:00
No mag inserted: ejection down magwell
No mag inserted, dominant or support hand only: stovepipe.

I'm surprised, and kind of unhappy about this. Do I need to consider an Apex extractor for this gun since it's one of my primary CCWs?

[ToddG]

I'm surprised, and kind of unhappy about this. Do I need to consider an Apex extractor for this gun since it's one of my primary CCWs?

Has the gun ever given you any indication in the past that it might have reliability issues? Has it been fired enough to be proven reliable?

[Clusterfrack]

Has the gun ever given you any indication in the past that it might have reliability issues? Has it been fired enough to be proven reliable?

No failures of any kind in ~1000 rounds. What do you think Todd?

[ToddG]

I certainly wouldn't be freaking out about it.

From reading through the thread, I think we've seen that guns with problems often fail this test, but also many people reporting that proven reliable guns sometimes fail this test, too. I know that when I was at SIG, it was a given that brass would either eject down the mag well or stovepipe if the gun was fired without a mag in place. That's because the guns were designed to be shot with a mag in place. It's like taking the ejector out... maybe the gun will still work, maybe it won't. But if it doesn't, that's probably because you took the ejector out!

That's why I suggested earlier that instead of just reporting pass/fail, folks also give some detail about the respective guns' reliability records. That would allow us to correlate results much more accurately.

It's completely possible that an unreliable gun that fails this test has certain problems and the test helps identify what they are without the test necessarily being the proof of reliability itself.

[Clusterfrack]

Todd--thanks. That makes good sense. I'm not freaking out, but do take reliability under a variety of conditions seriously. Since the gun has fun centipede well so far, I will just keep shooting and carrying it.

[Clusterfrack]

Freaking autocorrect. Functioned. Not fun centipede.

[ToddG]

Since the gun has fun centipede well so far...

And that's the pistol-forum.com Autocorrect Champion for Friday, July 19th 2013.

[Mr_White]

fun centipede

I was trying to understand how you meant that, and all I could come up with was that it was a zany term for a gun that went 1000 rounds without a stoppage, except you got it wrong and instead of fun centipede it should have been fun millipede. I should have guessed teh autocorrect. :)

I nominate 'fun centipede' as the new internet term for a gun that goes 1000 rounds without a stoppage.

[GJM]

In my testing, all the Gen 3 9's I tested (17/19) ejected down the mag well and all the Gen 4's I tested (17/19) ejected out the ejection port. Interestingly, I only remember a single stoppage in any of those pistols (and it was exactly one stoppage), and it was in a Gen 4 19 with an Apex extractor that ejects out the ejection port.

If, others with Gen 3 17 and 19 pistol, ALL eject thru the mag well, then the fact that an unreliable pistol ejects down the mag well might tell you it is a Gen 3 and nothing else?

[secondstoryguy]

As someone who used a 1911 for many years I put a little more stock in this test than most. I've owned (4) G19s, (2) G17s, (1) G34, all 3rd Gen N through S prefix. Only one of the G17s and the G34 passed the extraction test. Some of the guns were sold and I installed the newer style ejectors/Apex extractors in the remaining guns which made them 100% on the no-mag extraction test.

My (2) 9mm P30s extracted very well without the mags in place.

[GJM]

As someone who used a 1911 for many years I put a little more stock in this test than most. I've owned (4) G19s, (2) G17s, (1) G34, all 3rd Gen N through S prefix. Only one of the G17s and the G34 passed the extraction test. Some of the guns were sold and I installed the newer style ejectors/Apex extractors in the remaining guns which made them 100% on the no-mag extraction test.

My (2) 9mm P30s extracted very well without the mags in place.

My theory, but I don't have enough data yet, is the five digit ejector that came with the Gen 4's is what causes the round to eject out the port instead of the mag well.

Could you correlate lack of reliability with the pistols that ejected out the mag well?

[secondstoryguy]

My theory, but I don't have enough data yet, is the five digit ejector that came with the Gen 4's is what causes the round to eject out the port instead of the mag well.

Could you correlate lack of reliability with the pistols that ejected out the mag well?

The guns that were unreliable failed the test, but so did a few of the the guns that I found to be "reliable". You would probably find a correlation but you'd have to have a huge sample size and it would be small.

My testing, albeit relatively limited, indicates that replacing the old-style pointy 336 ejector with the newer 30274 flat-front ejector solves most, if not all of the reliability problems with the late production Gen 3s. The guns with the 30274 ejector also exhibit proper ejection with the magazine removed, although if I run 20-30 rounds through them without a magazine in place you will still see a couple of casings still going out the mag-well. With the Apex extractor installed and the new 30274 ejector installed, all pistols passes the no-mag extraction test 100%, with no rounds at all going out the mag-well in 40 or so rounds. I tested with various duty, factor and reloaded ammo and the results were the same. I also varied my firing grip from loose, one handed, strong etc and found that that had little bearing on the results.

[1986s4]

I can't do this test with my Browning P-35 because it still has the trigger disconnect. Anyone tried it with the disconnect removed? Normal ejection pattern for my P-35 is what I would call vigorous. 18lb recoil spring with standard main spring.

Ejection on my S&W M13 .357mag is very inconsistent. Sometimes I fire as many as 6 shots without any ejection at all....

[Slavex]

All ammo used is Federal 115 gr FMJ

2 Gen 3 Glock 17s x 25 rounds each
Glock 1 (fail) 8 eject out, sort of normal, but mostly a dribble, 12 down the mag well, 5 stovepipes. Gun was cleaned and lubed prior to the test, normal 2 handed grip
Glock 2 (fail) 13 barely ejected out, 9 down the mag well, 1 stove pipe, 2 stuck between breach face and chamber gun was lubed before test

3 CZ Shadows x 25 rounds
CZ 1 (pass), all 25 rounds ejected close to normal. Gun recently had new springs installed. Was not cleaned or lubed in 400 rounds
CZ 2 (pass) 24 Rounds ejected normally, 1 round went down the mag well. Shooter reported round sounded and felt weak, gun was lubed prior to the test but not cleaned in 500+ rounds
CZ 3 (pass) 20 rounds ejected normally, 5 rounds ejected erratically. Gun was lubed prior to the test not cleaned in 200 rounds.

Beretta 92 x 25 rounds
Pass, all rounds ejected, however no where near the same distance or spot as with a mag in.

Gen 4 Glock x 25 rounds
Pass, all rounds ejected well, not the same spot, but similar distance. Gun was cleaned and lubed prior to the test

Gen 3 Glock 19 x 25 rounds
Pass, 23 rounds ejected well, not the same spot or distance, but still forceful, 1 round down the mag well, 1 round straight back in to the shooters face (mine) normal 2 handed grip. Gun was a dirty whore, not cleaned or lubed in 1700 rounds (doing another 2000 round test on it)

[GJM]

I would bet a dollar that anyone who went to the trouble of switching their Gen 3 336 ejector for the Gen 4 30274 would change their Gen 3 from ejecting down the mag well to out the ejection port.

[justintime]

I would bet a dollar that anyone who went to the trouble of switching their Gen 3 336 ejector for the Gen 4 30274 would change their Gen 3 from ejecting down the mag well to out the ejection port.

on one of my guns all of the extractor and ejector fixes has it ejecting forwards out in front of me without the magazine ;) pelt the enemy with hot brass as well!

[joseywales10]

Just to get in my .02. I have a 2007 production gen 3 g17 that was ejecting brass straight back in my face. I changed the ejector to the 30274 and it's now perfect. I'm 1000 rounds into the 2000 challenge and no stoppages of any kind. I decided to try a round without the mag and she stove piped on me. Not sure what to get from that except ill keep the mag in ... All umc 115gr

[Mr_White]

I would bet a dollar that anyone who went to the trouble of switching their Gen 3 336 ejector for the Gen 4 30274 would change their Gen 3 from ejecting down the mag well to out the ejection port.

I only tested this for a couple rounds, so needs more testing to be sure but a Gen4 G17 (didn't look, but presumably with the 30274 ejector) ejected out the port. 3, Gen3 G34s, two with 336 ejectors and one with the 30274 ejector, all ejected down the magwell. Like I said, not enough reps though.

[JBP55]

Even though I do not think the extraction test in this thread means anything unless you shoot a 1911 I tried it with five 9mm polymer pistols today.
Shooting 6 rounds with both hands, 2 rounds dominant hand only and 2 rounds non dominant hand only they all ejected properly.
The first two are fairly new but I have never had an issue with any of these pistols.

S&W Shield.
Walther PPQ M2.
Gen 4 G19.
Gen 4 G17.
Gen 4 G34.

[Clyde from Carolina]

New in box Gen 2 Glock 17 from 1994 purchased by me a few months ago. For what it's worth, I had only put 45 Brown Bear FMJ steel cased rounds though this gun previously (with flawless reliability !) :rolleyes: and fine (but unrecorded) ejection.

Last Thursday I tried five rounds of Brown Bear in the gun with mag out. Three ejected to three o'clock in a strong fashion. One dribbled down mag well. One just barely ejected out and landed around two o'clock beside the gun. The gun ran, but did not inspire overwhelming confidence in this mode.

A buddy tried his luck and was sobered by a normally reliable late Gen 3 G19's similar performance...except in five rounds he had a sho' nuff malfunction with a failure to eject malf. This gun, he said, had approximately 800-1000 rounds through it. To add insult to injury, this same range visit it had a stovepipe in regular (magazine in) fire and started exhibiting brass to face syndrome. It was a 2010 Gen3 G19.

Not the most scientific, I know, just adding what I have.

[Cincinnatus]

In the P30 thread there's an interesting "test" of good extraction/ejection.



Could someone please provide a link to this"P30 thread," I'm not getting anything through a search.
Thank you.

[Willard]

Not sure if anyone is still interested in said topic. If not, ignore the necropsy. I found it potentially useful and thought I'd do some testing today.

Each pistol was fired minimum of 8 to 10 rounds chambered from magazine and magazine subsequently removed prior to firing. This was at the end of my range time, so they'd all been fired previously. Early Glock 17 Gen 4 (flat nose ring version) with a 30274 upgrade ejector, Apex extractor, and White Sound Defense HRED. Every round ejected cleanly through the ejection port.

Glock 19 Gen 3 with HRED, Apex, and 30274 same.

Glock Gen 17 Gen 3 (late model contemporary with Gen 4 release) with a 30274 upgrade ejector, Apex extractor (but no HRED) same with the exception of one round that failed to completely clear ejection port. I expended extra rounds to attempt to replicate this failure, but could not do so. May have been ammo related (all rounds were Winchester "NATO" 124 gr FMJ white box) or shooter induced.

Glock 19 Gen 2 with 30274 replacement ejector; every single solitary round went down the magazine well without exception. No failures to eject, but every one went through mag well.

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I know they are not 1911s, but there it is if anyone is interested.

[JHC]

Not sure if anyone is still interested in said topic. If not, ignore the necropsy. I found it potentially useful and thought I'd do some testing today.

Each pistol was fired minimum of 8 to 10 rounds chambered from magazine and magazine subsequently removed prior to firing. This was at the end of my range time, so they'd all been fired previously. Early Glock 17 Gen 4 (flat nose ring version) with a 30274 upgrade ejector, Apex extractor, and White Sound Defense HRED. Every round ejected cleanly through the ejection port.

Glock 19 Gen 3 with HRED, Apex, and 30274 same.

Glock Gen 17 Gen 3 (late model contemporary with Gen 4 release) with a 30274 upgrade ejector, Apex extractor (but no HRED) same with the exception of one round that failed to completely clear ejection port. I expended extra rounds to attempt to replicate this failure, but could not do so. May have been ammo related (all rounds were Winchester "NATO" 124 gr FMJ white box) or shooter induced.

Glock 19 Gen 2 with 30274 replacement ejector; every single solitary round went down the magazine well without exception. No failures to eject, but every one went through mag well.

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I know they are not 1911s, but there it is if anyone is interested.

I think that's interesting. Right now, none of my guns have an Apex extractor and I've never owned the HRED thingy. The guns run and run but I don't think I own one right now that will normally eject a case without the mag.

[45dotACP]

My G34 doesn't pass this test...all my 1911s do, Berettas too!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Tuesday]

Seems like the next logical step in the evolution of 1911 idiocy after the action spring "tuning" to the point where the slide will just barely lock back on empty. Run the extractor tension as high as possible so that the gun just barely functions, and use a gigantic, scalloped ejection port and extended ejector to compensate for the late release dysfunction you just induced/exacerbated. It's such a perfectly reasonable solution to badly-made, dysfunctional pistols... :rolleyes: