Posted: 4/27/2012 5:32:25 AM EDT
Not my video, but it appears to be a local IDPA shooters videos. Look at that ejection pattern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjU1jG90M3s |
|
Meh, although some came back at his face the pistol never malfunctioned that I saw.
One thing I've noticed is that his style of holding the pistol seems to be very popular now (maybe I just never noticed it before), I'm not a fan of it as I think it allows for less control of the pistol and allows it to rock in your hand more. I wonder if this is contributing to the problem that most people are experiencing? |
|
Quoted:
Meh, although some came back at his face the pistol never malfunctioned that I saw. One thing I've noticed is that his style of holding the pistol seems to be very popular now (maybe I just never noticed it before), I'm not a fan of it as I think it allows for less control of the pistol and allows it to rock in your hand more. I wonder if this is contributing to the problem that most people are experiencing? Do you mean thumbs forward? That grip has nothing to do with the ejection issues. I, and many others, have been shooting that way for years and have never had ejection issues because of it. As for less control, I can't remember what it feels like to shoot any other way, but I don't believe that grip leads to control issues either. |
|
Grreeeat.
So now the 26's are having erratic ejection? Everything I've read and heard has indicated that the 26's were fine. Freaking Glock. They're going to get their clocks cleaned and lose BIG time market share if they don't get on top of their GEN 4 issues. Just give us the old GEN 3 with the new grip and controls. |
|
Quoted:
Even though I bought my 26 in march it has the 226 ejector and the old recoil spring. I'm going to get those upgraded asap and see how it flies. I'd like to know if those wear marks are indicative of a QC/manufacturing problem though.  226 ejector? I thought it was the 336 ejector that needed to be replaced in the 9mms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even though I bought my 26 in march it has the 226 ejector and the old recoil spring. I'm going to get those upgraded asap and see how it flies. I'd like to know if those wear marks are indicative of a QC/manufacturing problem though. 226 ejector? I thought it was the 336 ejector that needed to be replaced in the 9mms. From what people are saying it seems to be a slide issue and the extractor/ejector isn't so much the issue as the slides are, they are a "bandiad" fix and its the slides that seem to be out of spec. And the "issue" has reportedly shown up in gen 3 and 4 pistols. I have a gen3 19 and17 both with the 336 ejectors and they function fine. The video the op posted shows about 1/4 of the rounds coming back at the shooter. Yes that shouldnt be the case but the pistol still functioned. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it as big a problem as people are making it out to be? Not IMO. I used to have a G30 that would occasionally bounce a spent case off my face/head and I hardly noticed honestly and wasn't concerned by it. If a new extractor or ejector fixed it that'd be fine by me as long as the pistol functions. There was another video posted in another thread supposedly showing a stock 34(IIRC) that had multiple jams which is extremely unacceptable IMO and should be sent back and fixed. The real concern that I see is the CS (or lack of) that GLOCK is reportedly giving/showing it's customers. If you have to send a gun back because of an issue you shouldn't have to spend a dime out of pocket. The big thing is that people need to be using an unbiased approach when looking at this "issue". ANY company that mass produces any product can experience materials and QC issues, it's how they react to it that shows their true colors and what kind of company they are. We shall see, but the issue of erratic ejection isn't as dire as people are making it out to be IMO. The weapons still function. It's not like they are not reliable, they have an annoying quirk. If a bandaid fix cures that and the weapon is still reliable then problem solved. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even though I bought my 26 in march it has the 226 ejector and the old recoil spring. I'm going to get those upgraded asap and see how it flies. I'd like to know if those wear marks are indicative of a QC/manufacturing problem though. 226 ejector? I thought it was the 336 ejector that needed to be replaced in the 9mms. From what people are saying it seems to be a slide issue and the extractor/ejector isn't so much the issue as the slides are, they are a "bandiad" fix and its the slides that seem to be out of spec. And the "issue" has reportedly shown up in gen 3 and 4 pistols. I have a gen3 19 and17 both with the 336 ejectors and they function fine. The video the op posted shows about 1/4 of the rounds coming back at the shooter. Yes that shouldnt be the case but the pistol still functioned. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it as big a problem as people are making it out to be? Not IMO. I used to have a G30 that would occasionally bounce a spent case off my face/head and I hardly noticed honestly and wasn't concerned by it. If a new extractor or ejector fixed it that'd be fine by me as long as the pistol functions. There was another video posted in another thread supposedly showing a stock 34(IIRC) that had multiple jams which is extremely unacceptable IMO and should be sent back and fixed. The real concern that I see is the CS (or lack of) that GLOCK is reportedly giving/showing it's customers. If you have to send a gun back because of an issue you shouldn't have to spend a dime out of pocket. The big thing is that people need to be using an unbiased approach when looking at this "issue". ANY company that mass produces any product can experience materials and QC issues, it's how they react to it that shows their true colors and what kind of company they are. We shall see, but the issue of erratic ejection isn't as dire as people are making it out to be IMO. The weapons still function. It's not like they are not reliable, they have an annoying quirk. If a bandaid fix cures that and the weapon is still reliable then problem solved. While my G26 may function fine in an emergency defensive situation, I can't really use it at the range any more without it being fixed because it ejects cases straight into my eye about 1/10 times. I wouldn't call that functional. |
|
From what I understand the issue is with the G17's and G19's produced after October 2010 including the GEN 3's made in that time as well as the GEN 4's.
Serial Numbers starting with P,Q,R, or S are bad news bears. After reading everyones "fixes" it all seems like a lot of band-aiding like the poster said above and it might be something really off spec in the slides or some other fundamental issue that you can't fix with a new ejector, extractor, and recoil spring.
Really upsets me as well since I really, REALLY like the the recoil spring, the textured grip, and the magazine release on the GEN 4's. Hell, you can't even find the GEN 3's that are low enough in serial number to get a good GEN 3 now at most places.
|
|
My opinion is that it has to do with the extractor or extractor cut in the slide. Gen 3 and gen 4 guns are experiencing the issue so it's not the RSA. The 336 ejector has been in use since before the problems began showing up. That leaves rhe extractor or extractor cut. I have had four gen 4 guns so far. A 17, two 19's, and a 21. I also had a recent production gen 3. The 21 and one of the 19's were early 2012 production and had very bad ejection issues. The gen 3 was also very bad. The other 19 which was test fired in November 2011 and the 17 which was test fired in February of 2011 both ran pretty well...the best of the lot. I still have the 17 as I'm pretty pleased with it.
As previously mentioned by others, my empties are hitting the edge of the ejection port on the way out and that may also be contributing to the problem. |
| Just went to the range with my Gen 3 19 yesterday to test out the new 30274 ejector I had Glock install. With the 336 ejector, I'd get 25% of the brass to the face. I ran 100 rounds through the gun with the new ejector. The brass to the face issue is solved, but alot of the brass dribbled out of the ejection port, barely clearing it. Although I had no malfunctions, that does not give me confidence. |
|
Same here. I had not paid much attention to the ejection pattern previously but with the 336 a lot of them were straight up. With the 30274 they're to the right. I think I did still get one case to the face though. Switched between the Lone Wolf extractor and the factory extractor with no decisive difference. Put 150 through it.
I should have brought my older G19s to compare. I never really paid much attention to ejection until I had a stovepipe with a late G19 and I started reading about the problem here. Quoted:
Just went to the range with my Gen 3 19 yesterday to test out the new 30274 ejector I had Glock install. With the 336 ejector, I'd get 25% of the brass to the face. I ran 100 rounds through the gun with the new ejector. The brass to the face issue is solved, but alot of the brass dribbled out of the ejection port, barely clearing it. Although I had no malfunctions, that does not give me confidence. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand the issue is with the G17's and G19's produced after October 2010 including the GEN 3's made in that time as well as the GEN 4's. Serial Numbers starting with P,Q,R, or S are bad news bears. After reading everyones "fixes" it all seems like a lot of band-aiding like the poster said above and it might be something really off spec in the slides or some other fundamental issue that you can't fix with a new ejector, extractor, and recoil spring.
Really upsets me as well since I really, REALLY like the the recoil spring, the textured grip, and the magazine release on the GEN 4's. Hell, you can't even find the GEN 3's that are low enough in serial number to get a good GEN 3 now at most places.
Exactly when is the cut off of a bad gen3 ? My last two purchases were used Glocks made in 2009 and I've had no problems yet. I figured 2009 is definitely safe, and 2010 depends. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I understand the issue is with the G17's and G19's produced after October 2010 including the GEN 3's made in that time as well as the GEN 4's. Serial Numbers starting with P,Q,R, or S are bad news bears. After reading everyones "fixes" it all seems like a lot of band-aiding like the poster said above and it might be something really off spec in the slides or some other fundamental issue that you can't fix with a new ejector, extractor, and recoil spring.
Really upsets me as well since I really, REALLY like the the recoil spring, the textured grip, and the magazine release on the GEN 4's. Hell, you can't even find the GEN 3's that are low enough in serial number to get a good GEN 3 now at most places.
Exactly when is the cut off of a bad gen3 ? My last two purchases were used Glocks made in 2009 and I've had no problems yet. I figured 2009 is definitely safe, and 2010 depends. I don't know this for a "Fact," and am simply repeating what I've heard on the internet here, but apparently Glock Gen 3's made after October 2010 include the P,Q,R, or S serial numbers that are bad. I don't know if those GEN 3's have out-spec-slides, but what I have heard is that is when they started placing the MiM parts in the Gen 3's.
Been doing a lot of online research on the subject lately, because I really, REALLY want a Gen 4, but I'm not going to buy a pistol with erratic ejection since I'm a big believer that ejection pattern is an indication of reliability. |