Glock Ejection Without Magazine

[MSparks909]

This problem has been around for almost a decade at this point. It may be time to conclude that Glock has long ago run out of fucks to give.

Why should Perfection have to change?

[Wayne Dobbs]

I don't think the dichotomy is that big. The parts they used on your gun cost them very little, and look at the goodwill it can bring.

Really truly "fixing" this would be much tougher and more expensive. I put quotes in because some don't think there's a problem at all, and even a fix would mean different things to different people.

Glock is selling every gun they can crank out. I'm not surprised they don't seem to give 2 shits about an issue that's inconsistent at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A true Gen 5 Glock would cost them millions in engineering, design and production changes, but it would have two things:

1. Ability to be disassembled WITHOUT pulling the trigger. (I'm convinced this is the single biggest thing that kept them from landing the M17 contract) AND....
2. A completely redesigned extractor that is pinned in the slide and powered by a conventional perpendicularly oriented spring at the tail of the extractor. It would be EDM machined with sharp engagement surfaces and it would stay engaged with fired cases during the unlocking, extraction and ejection cycle steps.

Those two things will occur the same day porcine life forms propel themselves to the moon....

[Hot Sauce]

Thing is many of the other major manufacturers are managing to get it right so the geometry and tolerances aren't magic.

Are those manufacturers holding a controlling stake in the market and resting on their laurels, or are they actively trying to expand their market share? Therein lie the motivations.

It's not the old HK adage of "they hate you," Glock doesn't hate you, they just can't hear you air out your grievances over the "cha-ching" sounds of all of their sales.

[blues]

I disagree. All evidence points towards insufficient extractor tension/function. A change in geometry to the extractor as well as tighter tolerance control of some surfaces of the extractor and possibly some of the extractor mating surfaces in the slide would fix it.

Thing is many of the other major manufacturers are managing to get it right so the geometry and tolerances aren't magic.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I understand the inertia needing to be overcome (to some extent) in getting a behemoth like Glock to make a change in course...but it seems, as nucci says, something that is well within their engineering acumen to accomplish. And I would think on a per gun basis going forward the cost would be relatively "minimal".

Of course, not having an MBA nor being an expert in this arena, I may be off base in my preconceptions.

[farscott]

A true Gen 5 Glock would cost them millions in engineering, design and production changes, but it would have two things:

1. Ability to be disassembled WITHOUT pulling the trigger. (I'm convinced this is the single biggest thing that kept them from landing the M17 contract) AND....
2. A completely redesigned extractor that is pinned in the slide and powered by a conventional perpendicularly oriented spring at the tail of the extractor. It would be EDM machined with sharp engagement surfaces and it would stay engaged with fired cases during the unlocking, extraction and ejection cycle steps.

Those two things will occur the same day porcine life forms propel themselves to the moon....

A little anecdote (if that is not redundant) on point 2. The very early S&W 2nd Generation guns used an extractor plunger design that looks like Glock borrowed. The 1st Generation guns used a variety of pivoting extractors and the later 2nd Generation and 3rd Generation guns used pivoting extractors. S&W basically reverted the design change with the extractor plunger. I wonder what S&W understood that Glock does not or does not care to change.

Here is the upper with the subject extractor from an early 559.

[Wayne Dobbs]

A little anecdote (if that is not redundant) on point 2. The very early S&W 2nd Generation guns used an extractor plunger design that looks like Glock borrowed. The 1st Generation guns used a variety of pivoting extractors and the later 2nd Generation and 3rd Generation guns used pivoting extractors. S&W basically reverted the design change with the extractor plunger. I wonder what S&W understood that Glock does not or does not care to change.

Here is the upper with the subject extractor from an early 559.

I recall seeing that set up way back in the day! I had forgotten that S&W did that extractor design. I would think it's cheaper than the more reliable and proven pinned and rear sprung design and Glock is all about less expensive. That old 559 has seen the wars!

[ER_STL]

Heh....looks like they put the Gen4 ejector into my G26 (shown with my older G19 behind it):

[Leroy]

A little anecdote (if that is not redundant) on point 2. The very early S&W 2nd Generation guns used an extractor plunger design that looks like Glock borrowed. The 1st Generation guns used a variety of pivoting extractors and the later 2nd Generation and 3rd Generation guns used pivoting extractors. S&W basically reverted the design change with the extractor plunger. I wonder what S&W understood that Glock does not or does not care to change.

Here is the upper with the subject extractor from an early 559.

Possible differences in amount of barrel tilt during the cycling of the gun probably plays a part. I believe that some people have seen improved ejection with aftermarket match barrels which may not tilt as much due to tighter tolerances. Apex put a dimple at the bottom of the extractor to prevent the case from being pushed low on the extractor. Other guns use a recess on the opposite side of the breach face to hold the case rim. On a stock Glock the extractor tension is not what I would call weak, but yet it some guns fail especially with no mag inserted (next round in mag preventing case from sliding down the extractor). Interesting test would be to trim 9 mm cases to SAMMI minimum vs. cases at max.

[Jeff S.]

I wanted to try this test with my carry piece, a Sig P320 Compact 9mm.

15 rounds of 147gr Speer Lawman and 147gr Federal HST (without the magazine inserted).

100% function with strong, consistent extraction and ejection.

[BK14]

Reviving this, as I’m now down this journey. My 19.4 had its annual inspection, as is my practice I test fired it after, and noticed that the last round’s empty case dribbled out. I loaded up a single round in a mag, shot it, and continued to see them dribble out, or bounce straight back to 6 o clock, slap my optic, and go straight to 12.

I tried it without a mag, and immediately got an “inline stovepipe”. Armorers swapped the RSA, extractor spring, and the little plastic piece (bearing?). Tested it again, same issue. Ejector/trigger housing replaced, same issue, but this time most brass ejected down the magwell (one piece still getting stuck while going down). Left the gun with them to be worked on, but we’ll see.

If it only happened with no mag in the gun, I wouldn’t lose a ton of sleep. That with a mag in the gun, ejection was so erratic, and bordering on failure, is why I was concerned.

My 34.5 and 17.5 passed without issue….. We’ll see if they can fix it, but if not, looks like the 19.4 will be retired and upgraded with Apex parts (not authorized for work) and I’ll be getting a 19.5.

Not sure the sudden change. Maybe it’s been an issue for awhile. This gun is carried often, and as of late shot rarely. It was my first CCW gun, which I used to compete with, so it’s seen quite a few rounds. May just be its time.