All I know is that if I tried to fix the Glock I haven't tested to see if it does or does't exhibit the issue, it would almost certainly lead to a chain reaction of stacked tolerance issues rendering the firearm inoperable the one time I truly will need it to work. Mine have been working since 1988 and 1995 respectively and I'm just going to continue to roll with 'em.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Yup. TLDR: a gun that has poor ejection in the test can get worse and fail over cycles.Originally Posted by breakingtime91
The issue is this, and I'm just paraphrasing from what I've read here:
ejection is a function of spatially controlling the case as it comes out of the chamber. The case wants to come out of the chamber. The extractor holds the case tight against the breechface so that it strikes the ejector in the same place every time. It is important that the case be struck off center low left, so that it's directed out of the ejection port high right.
Glocks generally have loose, high clearance, extractors. Short moment arm, limited spring cavity, lots of clearance to allow fabrication tolerances. If you happen to have a tight set of clearances by luck of tolerance the extractor holds the case well and the case is struck properly. If not, the magazine helps; the extracted case rides the last round and that helps position it for ejection, sometimes. Sometimes not so much; if the case is floating it's struck weakly and in inconsistent points, and it ejects weakly and inconsistently.
I noticed when the Gen3/4s were going through their drama in the 2011/12 timeframe that people were reporting failures in guns at high cycle counts, 3k-7k. I am willing to suppose that this is because the extractor wore (at the claw or in its pocket), and where it was getting away with using the magazine for case support for a while, it stopped doing so at some point.
I am comfortable with the idea that the improved extractors only fix some guns because the extractor is only one part of the clearance issue -- its pocket is the other half and that would take a gunsmith fit extractor to fix. I would therefore send a gun that an improved extractor didn't fix on down the road, rather than trying to cover it up with an improved ejector.
In summary, the test identifies weapons that are more likely to fail over cycles. If like many of us you have a practice / carry gun pair, it might not matter as much, but since it's an easy thing to fix I don't know why you wouldn't.
Incidentally I have purchased four Glocks since the 2012 period, all Gen 4 (2 17, a 19, and a 43). All pass the test and function well.
Ignore Alien Orders
I have seen approximately 120,000 rounds fired from Glocks in LEO POST training in a week and this was a non issue.
Does anyone have documentation where this has been an issue in the real world?
Last edited by JBP55; 03-29-2017 at 10:16 PM.
You mean where Glocks, particularly Gen4 19s, have developed FTEs following inconsistent ejection? The forum is full of individual shooters' anecdotes ("HRED" is a good search term). For departmental stuff I think DocGKR would be the first place I'd look, maybe Chuck Haggard, and HCM.
Ignore Alien Orders
Yes it does. I'm going to clean the other 2 tomorrow and try it with them.
How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?
Charles de Gaulle
Just as another data point. Purchased a new g19 with a Feb 17 manufacture date, consistent BTF with Reloads, 115 aguila and blazer brass. Does not pass the "no magazine" test.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Last edited by Larry Sellers; 03-30-2017 at 06:59 AM.
Look! Just because we're bereaved, that doesn't make us saps!
Well, it's time for me to eat some crow and acknowledge that I didn't know what I didn't know and offer my apologies for thinking that perhaps some of the reports or concerns were overblown...and I'm not even getting into the ejection without a magazine part of the equation.
Here's the scenario...Gen 2 Glock 19, which had been functioning as well as one would want, which is to say reliably at the range and at LEOSA quals.
Developed a crack which caused a chip to break off the grip near the magwell. How long the crack had been there is anyone's guess. A member here suggested contacting Glock and letting them upgrade the gun under warranty. Sounded like a plan.
Called Glock, showed images of the gun and they said to ship it there overnight on my dime and they would "upgrade" the frame to a Gen 3 and install all the current innards in slide and frame free of charge...as well as replace the three circa 1988 magazines originally received with the gun.
They received it a week ago today. I got it back yesterday. You can't fault the turnaround which was remarkably fast.
Field stripped the gun and it looked like it may have been fired but pretty clean so I took the gun and the three new magazines to my neighbor's range with a box of 115gr Blazer Brass. (The last box I had on hand from a case I've been shooting up over the past month or two.)
From about 12 to 15 yards the shots were going pretty much where I wanted them to with a little vertical deviation but nicely centered.
However, I experienced a number of failures to feed, failures to extract / eject, BTF, ejection to the left and right. Did I completely forget how to shoot a Glock since last week?
Called Glock after I walked home. They said the gun would have been checked and a couple mags fired before shipping it back to me. Said I'm probably limping the gun and that I needed to try 124gr ammo.
I can't remember the last time I limped a Glock but I said maybe I just had a bad day and I'll retest after cleaning the gun. I don't have 124gr practice ammo but I do have 124gr Gold Dot so I'm going to test, hopefully today if my neighbor can accommodate me, with 115gr American Eagle and the 124gr Gold Dots.
To say that I've been kicking myself for not just holding on to the old "dog bitten" Glock with the out of date innards would be an understatement but I'll give it a fair test and see if it really is possible that it's me and not the gun (or these new mags) which seems unlikely but I guess possible.
So, to anyone who thought I didn't take the issues seriously, you've earned a swift kick at my posterior.
Fortunately I still have a Gen 2.5 G26 and a Gen 4 G17, which appear to be functioning perfectly, for carry.
Last edited by blues; 04-26-2017 at 09:12 AM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I had a Gen 3 Gun that ran reliably, but threw about 10% brass to face.
30274 ejector dropped it to about 5%.
Non LCI spring loaded bearing dropped it to maybe 3%
Apex extractor, their spring and the original LCI bearing fixed it perfectly. No BTF and it will pass the 10-8 test 100%.
I should have tried the Apex extractor first, but was annoyed by the cost. An empty casing went from 1.5lbs to dislodge from the breech face to 5.5 lbs according to Apex's test protocol.
I am thinking of putting the original ejector back in now at the extractor was clearly the issue.
Thanks @Wayne Dobbs.
Last edited by Doc_Glock; 04-26-2017 at 09:51 AM.
Leave the Gen 4 ejector in there. If you notice, it presents more ejector face area to impact a case. I'm convinced that change is one of the things Glock has done right lately. It gives a nice comfort zone on performance. Also, you really should run the non-LCI bearing in this parts "train" as it's more compatible with the different extractor profile that the Apex part has.
Last edited by Wayne Dobbs; 04-26-2017 at 10:16 AM.
Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)
I agree that having to pay for the extractor, bearing, shipping etc is off-putting but if it has to go back to Glock after I test again and if it doesn't fix the issue, I'll have to bite the bullet or retire the gun. (Which may still have to happen, but I hope not.)
It does give me pause, however, from taking another chance on Glock despite my recent purchase of the Gen4 G17 which has been without a hiccup.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote