Glock Extractor Issues Gen 4 - Gen 3

[TOM1911]

Correct me if I'm in error, but I was under the specific impression that the previously reliable extractor was a cast component, and that the new, more problematic ones were MIM.

Best, Jon

MIM is a form of casting.. Just pressure injected, instead of gravity fed.. MIM just reduces the chance of voids in the casting. The same physical properties of the mettalurgy remain with both types of cast parts.. Minus the bubbles or voids. The grain structure is different from forged or hot rolled blanks that are machined into their final form.. Casting reduces machining steps and reduces finished product costs.

[ROUTEMICHIGAN]

Everyone talks about the dipped extractors being the problem. I have a Gen 3 G19 that would spit back casings at my face or have them pop up and land on top of me head or dribble out the side of the gun 1-2 times for every 10 rounds fired. No FTEs or FTFs. Everyone told me to switch out my "dipped" extractor. One wise shooter on another forum suggested I switch out my 336 ejector for the newer 30274 ejector. After sending my gun back to Smyrna twice (the good ole boys at Glock can be stubborn admitting their guns aren't "perfection"), they finally swapped out the ejectors (left the "dipped" extractor in). Now, my G19 has been running great- no weird ejection problems whatsoever and I'm hitting over 3K rounds with it now.

[DreadPirateMoyer]

MIM is a form of casting.. Just pressure injected, instead of gravity fed.. MIM just reduces the chance of voids in the casting. The same physical properties of the mettalurgy remain with both types of cast parts.. Minus the bubbles or voids. The grain structure is different from forged or hot rolled blanks that are machined into their final form.. Casting reduces machining steps and reduces finished product costs.

No. Pressure-injected casting is pressure-injected casting. MIM is a completely different process where the metal isn't fully-bonded until the last step and is held together in intermittent steps with binding materials like wax. The only thing they (casting and MIM) have in common is that they both use molds. They're vastly different processes otherwise.

Because of MIM's more intricate steps (like using solvents to remove the binding material, or reaching temperatures JUST below the melting point of the metal in question), it is often prone to create crappier parts than casting or forging.

With that said, when done correctly, MIM can reach the same quality as cast parts. It's rarely done correctly, though, as all of us often see in the firearms industry, including these crappy Glock parts that quickly wear out and are often out of spec in some manner.

[TOM1911]

You're right about the potential of MIM parts being capable of the same strength as bar stock parts.. It just isn't being realized. At best, MIM parts still have a 2 to 5 percent void ratio after the carriers are removed, either by heat, or by chemical means.. But, the grain structure is still open and prone to impact compaction.. So, the part wears faster or goes out of dimensional accuracy quicker.. So we see from the failures at anywhere from 800 to 2k rounds fired.. Some things just don't work well with MIM construction techniques..

[DreadPirateMoyer]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[roar]

Well, it looks like this Saturday is finally going to be the day that I get to test out the Apex extractor in my G19 Gen4.

I have 100 rounds WWB, 100 rounds of Federal Champion, and 50 rounds of Blazer Aluminum; all of which are 115 grain.

I will be testing using the gen 4 Apex extractor, slightly stronger Apex spring from the second shipment, and most likely the LCI spring loaded bearing.

The only thing I am still slightly unsure of is if I want to run with the LCI slb initially, or try out the non-LCI bearing first. Each of the above mentioned brands are held in place nicely by the Apex extractor when it is installed with the LCI bearing, per the fitting instructions on Apex's blog. This includes while the slide is shaken vigorously.

[AKDoug]

Well, it's my turn. Brand new G19 Gen 3 serial number begins with T. Lazy ejection, brass to hat brim and down my collar at round 90,95, and 96. I guess I'll patiently wait for APEX to get their new Gen 3 extractors in.

[Clay]

Any new reports on late 2012 Gen4 Glocks?

[ST911]

Any new reports on late 2012 Gen4 Glocks?

Yes

Yet another NIB current production gen4 G19 fielded today. Ser# UBK***. 500+ rounds fired first session.

100% function with several duty and training loads. Consistent and vigorous 4:00 ejection, one brass casing to the top of my head during a compressed shooting position. Sights true at mechanical center. Trigger on this one is good.

Dipped extractor, #1 mold, 30274 ejector, magazines #6 follower, 9 coil spring.

This one is in my holster.

1150 rounds as of this morning, all fired since 12/10/12. Ammo has been various duty and training loads. This was in actual shooting and skills work through various COFs and drills, not ejection-watching.

1 case struck my head while shooting in a compressed position early on.
1 case struck my vest while moving and shooting in a compressed position.
1 case was in my field of view as I transitioned to a target on the right.

The latter two were during 5 runs on the old FAMS TPC today.

Have several gen4 9mms now under my purview. More coming.

[roar]

Here is my Apex extractor range report:

Today I shot 250 rounds through my Glock 19 Gen 4. The ammo used was one 100 round box of WWB, two boxes of Federal Champion, and one box of Blazer Aluminum.

The gun was set up with the gen4 version of the Apex extractor, the slightly stronger spring from the second shipment, and the LCI bearing. The ejector is the latest 30274 variety.

Overall I have to say that I am very happy with the extractor. Ejection was almost perfect. The ejection pattern seemed much more consistent, with the brass shooting over my right shoulder. The only issues I had were two cases that very slightly dinged my right temple, and then one case that somehow ejected to the left.

These flawed ejections are different from last time, in that not once did I get beaned square in the forehead super hard, nor did I have any brass dribble or roll out of the ejection port. The ejection pattern was cleaned up immensely as well. I think I read in the past someone describing their Glock's ejection pattern being like a water sprinkler, shooting brass all over the place, and this description closely fit my G19's ejection with the original extractor.

I did notice that when I was hyperfocused and maintained a strong grip and strong locked arms and wrists, I had perfect ejection. I am not sure if this would have any impact on ejection pattern or not. 95% of the shooting was done two handed in an isosceles grip. I did shoot one magazine one handed with my arm stretched out fully, and I had perfect ejection that time as well.

I work graveyard, and my schedule typically only allows me to shoot after work right when the range first opens, so unfortunately I am really fatigued when shooting. This in turn translates into sloppier shooting, which means more effort is required on my part to make up for it

I am pretty sure that I want to have one or two more range outings with the LCI bearing in order to make a fuller evaluation. I think it was performing well enough that I am happy to just roll with it installed, with the bonus of having higher reliability. Throwing in my non-LCI bearing is somewhat tempting though.

Thanks Apex and Randy!