Posting for a friend who is not a member.

Neighbor purchased an PSA pa10 lower and pa10 rifle kit.  He put it together and off to the range we went.  He was getting ejection failures immediately using aguila brass .308 and a couple different pmags. Insert mag, pull charging handle and the round seated fine.  Pull the trigger round goes boom.  The spent casing would usually get caught in the ejection port perpendicular to the next round as it tried to feed into the chamber.  Drop mag, clear jam.  Repeat, same issue almost every round.

At this point he noticed the trigger pin was starting to work its way out.  Interestingly, I had brought my new PSA ar15 build.  The trigger pin was also working its way out.  But mine cycled fine with brass but had a weird thing with steel....mine would fire about 3-4 rounds and then I'd pull the trigger and nothing.  Drop the mag, pull the handle and the new round would drop out of the chamber.  Put the mag back in, recharge and boom.  No issues with ejecting the spent casing.

So we came home and stripped the guns.  Both of us had incorrectly installed the hammer spring.  So we fixed that and headed  back out to the range.  I put 4 mags of wolf through it as quickly as the range allowed.  No problems.

My buddy got through one mag of ammo and then the same issue started happening.  Then he saw this....


He says the ejector roll pin is still in place and presumably the spring as well.  He's contacted PSA and is awaiting their reply.  What would cause the ejector to snap off like that?

Honestly, stuff breaks.  Get a new one an move on. I don't understand the need to take it any further than PSA.

I understand that stuff breaks.  He's waiting on PSA to take care of it, which from my experience, they will.

I was just wondering if this had happened to someone before and if there was a way to prevent it...ie a function test of some kind.

They made the ejector with failure built into it.

Ever see an ejector stepped like that?

There is no longer the sectional area of the full cylinder, so of course it will break like that.

Obviously I need to shoot a lot more since I haven't yet encountered this failure

Ejectors normally just have a scallop in them for the retaining pin, which is a roll pin.  There is a series of call-outs for ejectors in the AR15 TDP, naming material, cutting method, heat treat, dimensions, test protocols, surface finish and hardness, just as there are for the ejector spring.

If you're trying to wing it and come up with your own ideas on these parts, you better have an engineer who knows what he is doing.  This stepped design is inherently prone to failure, but appears to be made for ease of assembly, since you don't have to worry about clocking the pin like you do on a real one-the ones that don't break.

Yes, the ejector of the AR was designed with ease of production in mind.  If the part is too hard the head will pop right off, however if made right it is strong enough.

I thought 308 ejector is standard 223 ejector! There is really no need to re-engineer ejector for 308, new DPMS GEN 2 has dual ejectors, not sure if that is really needed.

It's because they needed a bigger spring than would fit.

KAK also has dual ejectors. I picked one up but haven't tried it out yet.

It looks like the only reason it broke, is because the metal was improperly heat treated.  It happens sometimes.  While we don't normally see it with ejectors, plenty of other small parts have broken on ARs for the same reason, and the world hasn't come to an end.  I would just replace with whatever PSA sends.  If it breaks again, I would then look to another manufacturer.

I think LRRPF53 makes a valid assessment above. It looks like they modified the extractor design to make it easier to assemble. The new design doesn't seem nearly as strong as the original (to my not-an-engineer eye).

If PSA send the same type again, I would probably just go buy one from another vendor.

You may not be an engineer, but an engineer somewhere signed off on it.  The part is encapsulated and basically drives forward and aft under spring pressure.  Where it changes size, there is a noticeable fillet for proper stress relief.  The part clearly shows indication of brittle fracture, which is indicative of improper heat treatment.

This.

I have no reason to doubt your assessment of the failure. As this isn't an isolated incident, perhaps there is a bad batch due to improper heat treatment.

Simply as a layperson, if somebody handed me the PSA ejector and the DPMS ejector, I would choose the DPMS.

Think of every brand or every model or every part you avoid like the plague. Somewhere an engineer signed off on the designs that have high failure rates.

No disrespect intended, I appreciate your technical knowledge on the matter. For the record I have several PSA rifles, so I am not here to bash PSA. However, I'm glad I have the KAK bcg :)

A lot of people have problems with something, while many other thousands upon thousands of other people never have a problem with the same thing or part.  Look at all the crap that was talked about DPMS for many years, yet they outsold all other AR manufacturers combined for a long, long time, and maybe even still do.  Fact of the matter is, most things serve their intended purpose most of the time.

Just because dpms out sold others, does not make them better.

Having a cheaper made product, made of inferior materials, with magnificent advertising, will get thousands of suckers who know nothing except how to pull a trigger.

Then you have thousands of those suckers who have had these rifles for 10+ years, and say they're super reliable and accurate. Yet, fail to mention their rounds count.

I've seen tons of dpms 308s go the distance, I've seen alot more fail and hit the dirt.

The product with the most sells is usually never the best. Only has great marketing.

If they failed at an appreciable rate, people would stop buying them.  Word of mouth is much more powerful than marketing.  

The marketing kudos go to the guys that sell all the mall ninja bullshit on a mass scale, because most people don't run up to you and tell you that their stuff runs well, they usually only tell you when they have problems.  And exactly which inferior metals are you referring to?  Just because it isn't mil-spec doesn't mean it is inferior for 99% of intended use and purposes.  The only reason so many manufacturers have gone to using mil-spec metals, is so they can put it in their advertising, because so many dipshits fall for it.

For awhile, they were using really crappy metals for the bolt catch, firing pin retaining pins, small stuff like this. And you had no one else to get parts from but them. DPMS has come along way since then tough. Have learned from their past mistakes somewhat.

Mil spec has certainly become a marketing term. 100% agree there, however the TDP, or mil spec, is the required starting point for known reliability. Stray too far, and you get weird stuff like this.

Wasn't putting dpms down, just saying they're far from the best. Great foundation, sure. Best? No way.

Let's just say the design of the DPMS ejector is better . . .