Ejection in that gun was always very consistent, about 3:30-4:00 o'clock, about 4 or 5 feet away. I started out with Glocks with an ancient 2nd Gen G21 (serial number AVExxx, so basically right after Glock introduced them). I went to the range today, fired one magazine with a mild hand load of 147 gr plated bullets above 3.9 gr of BE-86, and then a magazine of 124 gr Speer +P Gold Dots with each ejector installed. Which would perform best? Would the gen 5 ejector cause any issues in the gen 3? Would it offer notable improvement over the 30274 ejector I had installed? The 30274 did improve performance a bit, but ejection was still weak, and once in a blue moon I’d get a shell thrown at my face or land on my hat. So given all that, I decided to mess around with each ejector in my old gen 3 19. That said I have read of gen 5 19s thst got sent back to glock for BTF getting shipped back with 47021 ejectors installed. If they ship new guns with new parts, that’s admitting fault in the old parts. I suspect it has to due with the numerous government contracts Glock has and the cost of updating older models already on the street. Why the 17 and 19 gen 5 still ship and are still specified to have the 30274 ejector, along with the gen 3 still having the 336 ejector is a bit of a mystery. This ejector is what is currently shipping with the G26 gen 5, G34 gen 5, and 19X. However to this day, Glock still ships gen 3 guns with the 336 ejector, despite the fact that some gen 3 guns that get sent to Glock with BTF issues come back with the 30274 ejector installed.įinally we have the 47021 ejector. Some folks had to resort to the expensive Apex aftermarket extractor to get their guns to run right. It corrected most of the issues, however folks still complained that ejection was “weak” compared to other pistols, and still had BTF issues. All 9mm gen 4 guns and the Glock 19 and 17 gen 5 now ship with this ejector installed. It was still dead nuts reliable however.Īfter the issues arose with the gen 4 guns, Glock came out with new recoil springs and new ejectors. Every 50-100 rounds I’d get a hot piece of brass thrown at my face. But after that I noted that my gen 3 wasn’t great either.
My early gen 4 was worse, and eventually I sold it. You will see from the video isn’t ejection isn’t exactly perfect. My April 2007 Glock 19 is one of those oft sought after pre-MIM Glocks. Sure, it didn’t hit you in your face every shot, but it was sort of erratic and weak, albeit reliable. That said as we go back and shoot some older models, we realize that the 9mm Glocks of lore didn’t have picture perfect ejection to begin with. Gen 3 and earlier guns were obviously known for their reliability. The gen 3 and earlier guns shipped with the “336” ejector, reference to the part number stamped on the side. This, along with the slower slide velocity due to heavier recoil springs contributed to the BTF issue becoming a very noticeable problem. The MIM extractors fit too tightly in the slides. MIM can make excellent small parts that would be otherwise hard to machine, but due to slight changes in component size this led to tolerance stacking issues. Along with this Glock transitioned to MIM (or metal injection molding) for their extractors about the same time.
Gen 4 ejector full#
As long as you were using full power defensive loads the guns had no issues, but break out a box of WWB like most of us and failures were common. The guns were shipped with a stiffer recoil assembly to cope with the 40 cal, which had taken over law enforcement at the time.
This discussion seemed to kick off with the advent of gen 4. Those of us who have been hanging around Glocks as well as the internet for a while know that “erratic ejection” or “brass to the face” (BTF for short) has been a longstanding and often discussed issue, especially in 9mm Glocks.
0 kommentar(er)
