PSA: Glock Light Primer Strikes in Conversion Too Close For Comfort

The following photographs are from a conversion of a .40 S&W Glock 22 Gen 3, to a 9x19mm. Although most parts are OEM, bare in mind this is in no way representative of what a stock Glock is, and is an indication to be mindful when converting a .40 S&W Glock to fire 9x19mm rounds.

I initially had this Glock 22 for some years, because I decided to jump on the 9x19mm bandwagon, while retaining the capabilities of a .40 S&W barrel should I ever need it. Most conversions go flawlessly, but mine for some reason was the biggest headache. Starting with a Lone Wolf 9x19mm barrel, having problems (ejection and extraction issues). Then changed out the extractor to a 9x19mm, still having problems. Changed out the ejector to a 9x19mm, only to find out the extractor was dented, so ordered a new extractor, with the 9x19mm ejector.

Initially all seemed to be going well, I was able to reliably load and unload an entire magazine of live ammunition. By the way, if you are going to test loading and unloading and don’t want to use live ammunition, make sure you have dummies of the same weight and material (inert rounds) as live rounds. This is because the aluminum or plastic dummies simply don’t perform like their live cousins would.

But I digress. I noticed some of the rounds, instead of being flung to the right, were shooting straight forward of the handgun. I thought that was odd, usually live rounds or even empties don’t project themselves forward of a semi-automatic handgun when ejected. I took a look at the rounds, and I was very shocked to find light primer strikes!

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.05.48 AM

The primer strikes weren’t from the striker, as Glocks don’t have floating firing pins like AR15s do. They were from the tip of the ejector. As the rounds made their rearward journey with the extractor, the ejector surface was engaging some of them on the primer, instead of the actual case, where they should have been engaged. Very alarmed, I looked at the rest of the rounds and sure enough, every single one of them had primer strikes either on the primer, or around the edges of the primer. Only about a quarter were serious enough for me to thank my lucky stars I always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.06.31 AM

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.06.23 AM

The difference between an OEM 9x19mm ejector, which is labeled as “336” from the factory, and an OEM .40 S&W ejector (labelled 1882) is that the 9x19mm one is “hooked” to the right, so as to catch the smaller diameter of the 9x19mm casing, compared with the larger .40 S&W casing which is much larger and is straight.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.07.54 AM

 

Now, could a primer have actually been detonated by the extractor on its way out of the slide? Maybe, maybe not. But if you look at these expended 9x19mm casings, the amount of depth difference between a successful primer strike, and a light one is much too close for comfort for what I want.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.06.03 AM

Determined to solve the problem, I took a pair of pliers and tried to bend the “hook” portion of the extractor to the left, so it would instead engage the actual casing, instead of the primer. Dufus me, I snapped a little bit of the ejector clean off.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.07.02 AM

But this was actually a blessing in disguise, because I attempted to load and unload rounds again, to see if maybe this would have made a difference. Incredibly, it did. Ejection was still excellent, flinging live rounds far and wide of the handgun, with none to the front. Then examining the actual casings, the extractor strikes had moved to the left side of the primer, onto the actual shell where I wanted them there the whole time.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 1.05.29 AM

Please let my alarm be a lesson for all who want to convert Glock .40 S&W handguns to 9x19mm. As stated previously, the overwhelming majority of conversionĀ cases do work perfectly fine, without having to change out the extractor and ejector to 9x19mm. Granted, with the changing of the times, you’d be much better off with going for a dedicated Glock in 9x19mm instead of messing with any of this conversion business. Much in the past decade is pointing to .40 S&W being lead out of the door of effective handgun calibers. But even so, .40 S&W still is apart of the big three (9mm,.40, .45) when it comes to popular semi-automatic handgun cartridges.

However with my particular case, probably due to some infinite variable of nanometer dimensions, the ejector just wasn’t working the way it should have, striking rounds on the rim of the shell instead of the primer. Perhaps nothing would have come of this ejector had I never observed the strikes or even bothered to alter it. But in this case, I’d much rather be playing safe than sorry.



Miles

Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia. You can also follow us on Twitter- @Silah_Report

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at miles@tfb.tv


Advertisement

  • Porty1119

    Friends don’t let friends by .40s, unless it’s a 40mm.

    • AC97

      Or a 10mm.

    • 40mmCattleDog
    • Gregory

      Perhaps you could enlighten me as what is wrong with the .40 S&W. I have been shooting the .40 for over 17 years. I have shot at least 10,000 rounds out of eight different pistols and a UMP sub-machine gun. The round has been reliable and accurate. Again, what is the issue here? Could it be just a bunch of wimps that cannot handle a little more recoil than a 9mm produces?

      • Twilight sparkle

        The real issue is that it’s not a 10. 40 short and weak killed the 10 when FBI agents decided they couldn’t handle the recoil. I mean if you’re going to go small you may as well get more rounds like with a 9mm. That’s why most gun people now stick with the well established 9 or 45

        • Wow!

          I never understood the myth that 40 is weak. If so, are the 9mm and 45 also short and weak? 40S&W outperforms both of them in energy, and really isn’t all that much below that of a 10mm. You have to remember, you really don’t get much more terminal performance out of handgun calibers because the energy is already low to begin with compared to say a rifle or shotgun. You won’t get the hydrostatic shock that rifles give (and yes, the myth that hydrostatic shock does not exist is a myth. It is present in rifles, and just so low in handguns that we don’t count it. If question the existance of hydrostatic shock, why to hunters use slow and heavy bullets to preserve meat than fast and light?), which is why bullet diameter matters so much. Any extra energy the 10mm has will just pass through the body and be wasted anyways.

          • iksnilol

            Pardner, .40 S&W at best is a neutered 10mm auto. Which ironically, is what 10mm is, you’d be hard pressed to find proper loads in 10mm auto that approach its potential. That’s the “myth” of 40 S&W bein’ weak. Because it is in comparison to full blood 10mm. Just like .38 special target loads are weak in comparison to high pressure .357 magnum hunting loads.

            Regarding that huntin’ remark. You maybe think that small and fast bullets tumble/frag more easily? Here in Norway 6.5×55 is most commonly used for hunting. I dare wager that is a somewhat fast bullet, yet it don’t destroy much meat (granted correct bullets are used, same applies to 30-06).

          • Phillip Cooper

            7/10. You need to work on your “‘Murican” (groans and sighs, as I DEPLORE the term) accent.

            Recommend you watch more John Wayne movies, and take up chewing tobacco. Also, consider watching The A Team (series, not the movie)…

          • iksnilol

            7/10 is fine by me.

          • Wow!

            Well sure, compared to a 10mm it is weaker, but the 40 short and weak usually is made when 9mm and 45 are being compared, both of which have less energy than the 40.

            I’m not much of a hunter. I just brought it up to give an example of “hydrostatic shock” that does exist given enough velocity because basically it is just momenum on the molecular level. Another example could be throwing a block of plasticized explosive into a lake and watching the fish come up (not that I would or ever did that :V)

          • iksnilol

            No they don’t. Energy figures are very similar between 40 and 9mm. Between 500 and 600 joules. This is factory ammo ofc, I don’t know about custom loads.

          • Wow!

            40 does have more energy than 9mm. Only +P and +P+ reaches 40 levels, and then 40 can be pushed a little harder if needed. Sure, the energy difference isn’t significant (the caliber comes into play more than anything else with these auto handgun cartridges) but nothing that warrents the tag of 40 short and weak except by the old guys who consider anything less than .38 special in 158 grain loads as inadequate.

        • Phillip Cooper

          I’m sorry, this is too good to pass up:

          Anyone else but me notice the guy named “Twilight Sparkle” is calling folks weak?

          (all in good natured ribbing… you gave yourself the nick, one must assume out of a sense of ironic humor).

      • Porty1119

        .40 beats the hell out of pistol frames, and is difficult for a large many shooters (including LEOs, hence the shift back to 9mm) to shoot accurately. I’m not recoil-averse- I carry a .45- but the .40 really seems to take weaknesses from both 9mm and .45. Full-house 10mm has enough of an increase in terminal effectiveness to be worth the tradeoff, in my opinion.

        • ozzallos .

          And the fact that if you really want .40 performance, you simply drop the bullet weight of your .45. Your capacity is what? A round less? Two max? Okay, lol.

        • gunsandrockets

          .40 only beats frames that were made for 9mm. It isn’t an issue for handguns originally designed for the .40 S&W, like the USP and M&P.

        • Bill

          Shoulda bought that Bren X when I had it in my hand…

      • iksnilol

        Take the bad things from 9mm (“Weak” and somewhat snappy) and add that with the bad things of .45 (heavier recoil and low mag capacity) and you get .40 S&W.

        • gunsandrockets

          The problem with .45 ACP is that is an obsolescent low pressure load which doesn’t make very good use of the limited volume of a handgun.

          The problem with 9mm is iffy penetration performance with HP ammo.

          Now I have no real problem with 9mm or .45 ACP. But this current fad that .40 is a bad cartridge is silly. It’s no worse than any other pistol caliber. And since .40 S&W was the first cartridge specifically designed around more modern notions of HP pistol bullet performance, arguably .40 S&W is one of the best HP pistol cartridges.

          But ultimately all this arguing over pistol calibers is silly. Until you get up to at the very least hot loaded .357 magnum fired from a long barrel, all the pistol calibers are pipsqueaks with insignificant differences of lethality between them. In terms of practical lethality, a FMJ .380 ACP is as good as any 9mm Luger, .40 S&W or .45 ACP.

          • iksnilol

            first time I hear that 9mm has “iffy” performance.

          • gunsandrockets

            the Lucky Gunner Labs test results are very enlightening

            And of course it all depends on what you consider adequate penetration too.

            In my opinion 9mm is marginal. If you use the best HP ammo with a not too short barrel, sure it will penetrate adequately. As opposed to boring cheap .40 180 grain HP which has no problem.

          • Nicks87

            Lab/gel tests are not necessarily a good comparison on how a bullet will perform in living tissue. The FBI uses it as a standard but does anybody really trust the bipolar FBI anymore?

          • Wow!

            Gel tests are the best and ONLY way to objectively compare how a bullet performs in living tissue and compare two different loads. It is the only method that has real world data used as a sort of “calibration” to confirm the general gel results we want to see for the performance we want. The problem is that people need to know what they are looking for. The first is to look at overall energy of the type of load you are comparing, next is to look at bullet diameter, third is to put it all together in gel to find a load and bullet combination that will produce the necessary penetration (first and foremost) and then subjectively, a big enough permament cavity. As an example, thin wispy cracks in the gel may look impressive but will never actually do anything in reality and these must be ignored.

          • Wow!

            9mms have always been known for erratic peformance (which is why their main use up until now have been in SMGs and military service pistols) and only became mainstream as a more reliable option in full sized close quarter defensive handguns once good hollow points were developed. Until this point, we needed a lot more energy which the “full sized” handgun cartridges used in revolvers provided.

            The thing is that while nearly any caliber will punch clean through a person and kill, it may not do it fast enough. We found out through lots of shootings that with an unexpanded 9mm projectile, the body seals up the wound pretty well and if that penetration did not lead to some kind of physiological disruption (not just pain compliance from “good God, I just got shot and it is starting to hurt!”) then we have to rely on blood loss. With a 9mm hole being plugged up relatively effeciently by the tissue, it’s performance was not considered something to rely on unless you had a whole bunch to poke a lot of holes to collectively get enough blood loss or increase the probablity of hitting something critical (smg/carbine).

            Wider diameters above the 9mm were found to create a pernament cavity that was large enough to encourage a lot more blood loss. 45 for example actually has less muzzle energy than a 9mm, yet it was considered a much more effective caliber because even in FMJ, it was already large enough to produce a good temporary cavity. Any further expansion it gets from hollow points is pure gravy. A 9mm on the other hand, must rely on a hollow point to expand it’s diameter to .40-0.45″ and this can be complicated due to slow expansion where the bullet passes through before the petals fully expand, or due to clogging where the bullet stays like a FMJ. Even today, the reliablity of the 9mm is a task bullet mfg are still trying to solve with more reliable and less energy dependent means of expanding designs.

            The issue of bullet design is suggested to be one of the big reasons that the 9mm had such inconsistent reports of performance (although this is impossible to say objectively since no target of the 9mm is totally the same as the target of another caliber). In a parallel line of thought, this is sort of why police carrying 5.56 in hollow points and ballistic tips find the cartridge more than suitable while some in the military using non-expanding FMJ complained about shot people “getting back up”. Either way, in short, a 9mm has to rely on the mechanical reliablity of a hollow point to get to a “40 thou” level, while a 40 or 45 will never shrink to a 9mm.

            And then, this whole debate on calibers is mostly arbitrary because no matter what, even the revolver cartridges never reach the performance of a rifle, and relative to this, all handgun cartridges are equally weak and ineffective against the most determined threats, which few of us, even those who regularly carry a weapon for a living, will ever encounter. That said, you got to go back to the beginning. Given that handguns are not rifles and are weak, and that when it is our life on the line, we are going to prepare for the worse, and in doing so we much choose the most effective handgun cartridge possible to stack the odds in our favor if we can afford it (financially and skill wise).

            TL;DR Always carry the largest caliber possible.

          • iksnilol

            What you said in the last paragraph: “all cartridges are weak and ineffective”, I dare reckon that does apply to the holy 40’s and 50’s as well.

            And sure, your anecdata (from unspecified background) like to tout 9mm as weak and whatnot but seeing reports from shootouts (a guy did a mighty decent compilation, I’ll see if I can bother to find it) the .45 and 9mm didn’t really differ. Surprisingly enough, .32 ACP had a higher rate of one shot stops. And even then, that was under 50%.

            So I’d counter your TL;DR with the following: Anything worth shootin’, is worth shooting twice. Carry something that can doubletap easily, and as many times as possible.

          • Wow!

            Yeah I totally agree. Compared to rifles all handgun calibers are not all that effective, and it is because of this, that we want to stack the odds in our favor to give the most reliable performance possible. That is why I said shoot the biggest caliber possible you can afford financially and skill wise (giving a new shooter a 357 probably isn’t smart when they will use a .380 or 9mm more effectively). One of the reason pocket calibers have higher instances of one shot stops is because these shooter have to deal with a low magazine capacity so they tend to be slower and more accurate, this pause allows them to stop fire in time when the adversary drops. A lot of situations that have been belived to probably be lethal on the first shot are not classified as such because the shooter is firing rapidly until the threat drops. One shot stops are not as reliable of a measure due to this, as well as the variables from shot placement.

            I think we would agree that shot per shot, a 45 would be more effective than a 9mm, the question being if that increase is worth the reduced capacity and higher recoil.

            It’s not that 9mm is weak, (nearly all calibers will sail clean through a person) it is that it is unreliable due to the diameter. It simply is on that threshold where it won’t produce a nice permament cavity due to the elasticity in gel unless it has expansive capabilities that bring it up to a 40-45 diameter.

            It has been brought up that you can shoot two rounds of 9mm in thet time you can get one round of 45, and while that is true in competition, it is not so in reality. Force on force training as well as real life shootings show that there is a broad difference in situations, either one case where the shooter only has time for one accurate shot (if they can even present the firearm), or where the distances or position of cover provide enough standoff and time for multiple shots in either caliber including the full sized cartridges. Especially since the 9mm is catered to new shooters generally, they will likely have an even closer fire rate to a heavier caliber as they aren’t able to utilize the low recoil characteristics of the 9mm as effectively.

            I think the 9mm is a great carbine/SMG cartridge, I also think it is a great choice for decent sized pocket handguns and for new, weak, or handicapped shooters who feel intimidated by larger calibers. That said, for the rest of us who practice regularly and are in good health, I don’t see any reason so far to not take the edge that large calibers have in provide in a diameter that provides reliable wounding if the penetration doesn’t get something critical.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but all observations so far show that the difference in diameter between .38 and .45 isn’t great enough for there to be a real differemce on target.

          • gunsandrockets

            Hot .44 Magnum and .460 Rowland loads do barely get up to rifle level power. So there’s always that option.

            As far as more common pistols and common pistol cartridges, there really isn’t much practical difference in lethality between them. Absent a CNS hit they all incapacitate by exsanguination.

            Yes, bigger is better even with a low powered handgun. But I don’t let that fool me into thinking a .45 ACP hollow point is going to give me much advantage over a .380 ACP FMJ. They are both pipsqueaks.

            Watch the video clip of the terrorist Mall Stabber who was shot down. It is very educational. Despite receiving multiple gunshot wounds the terrorist keeps going for a freaking long time, and the shooter had to keep retreating from him until he bled out.

            According to ER trauma doctors, the vast majority of people shot with handguns are wounded vs killed, and most pistol wounds lack an exit wound. According to criminoligists most criminals don’t seem very picky or selective about what they load their pistols with, the most common load being FMJ.

            Based upon this my personal opinion is that expanding pistol bullets are hugely overrated (as are the usual “minimum caliber” arguments for SD handguns). Better over-penetration with FMJ than potential under-penetration with a HP.

            In fact, I would even argue that for a specific pistol caliber, over-penetration with a solid bullet is better than an expanding bullet which stays in the body, because an exit wound would accelerate exsanguination. Now I only favor HP pistol bullets if used with a deeper wounding heavier caliber load. Think hot loaded .38 Super from a 5 inch barrel with 147 grain HP as a minimum load.

          • Wow!

            The fact that bullets lack exit wounds is new to me. Every single situation I have known, the bullet goes clean through the person, the only thing left behind are usually jacket fragments and petals. Then again, every department has their own experiences so I wouldn’t doubt it. Likely the cases where the bullet did not make an exit wound was in a pocket caliber like .380 as those are notrious for not passing the penetration standards in gel, and why for those, FMJ is better. More people are using .380 due to the cheap pocket pistols coming back in favor and the idea it is easier to shoot (which isn’t always the case with the really small handguns).

            That said, going back to my first comment, if an exit wound is not present, then that entrance wound matters even more, which means that you need a larger diameter to compensate. A 45 would still be a better choice than a 9 purely on the starting diameter.

            You are right that for reliable hollow point expansion velocity is needed which is why a lot of guys who liked the full size revolver cartridges go for .38 super because 9mm doesn’t have the velocity or case capacity to allow a wide hollow point. However, that only points even more strongly that diameter matters even more.

          • gunsandrockets

          • Wow!

            Lol, I actually was just about to edit to ask if this is the video you were talking about. He is talking about exit wound and entrance wound not being definable, not that it is non-existant. People used to be taught that the exit wound is the larger one, however, with cartridges of low velocity the exit wound can actually be the same size or smaller than the entrance wound. In order to not cause a confusion in the paper work, you aren’t taught to classify it as exit or entrance but rather just note the existance of the wound and leave it up to others to determine which came first based on the context of the situation.

            The only time he mentioned where the bullet may be captured is in a vertical shot down the body such as the african terrorist who was leaning forward. This is rare, and is already accounted for in the FBI gel penetration requirements. It passes through the organs that “matter” in such case, the exit wound is mostly arbitrary in this niche senario, if you got shot like that, you are pretty well screwed.

            (As a side note, can these nurses and health practicioners stop wearing your scrubs and coats in public?! Cross contamination is a thing! You don’t need to convince me you are who you are with dress, I believe you! I’m sure they change into clean ones, but you never know.)

          • gunsandrockets

            Not rare. Watch again, 21:10 to 21:50.

          • Wow!

            Well not rare for his cases, but pretty rare for the rest of us. This is why so much effort is emphasized in training about positioning and knowing what is behind your target before you fire. I suspect most of his cases might have been a lot of .380 or lower, or perhaps after shooting through some kind of barrier (car door, glass maybe?) because most cartridges including most loads of 9mm easily penetrate well past an individual. Unless by not rare he meant that in an individual shot multiple times that at least one won’t pass all the way through. That makes sense, although more for the 9mm and 380, not so much the larger calibers given they are in the regular defensive loadings.

            Either way though, going back to the debate of 9mm vs larger calibers, the fear of not getting complete penetration only further strengthens the point to carry as large as a caliber as possible, because you may only get to make one hole per shot. It is best to make that hole as large as possible with bullet diameter if you can’t rely on rifle velocities.

          • skeezix

            How young are you? If you’ve been on the planet more than 25-30 years then you should have ‘known’ about the ineffectiveness of the 9mm Parabellum. šŸ˜‰

          • iksnilol

            Oh yeah, horribly inneffective. That’s why literally the whole world has used it in its SMGs and pistols. Horrible cartridge indeed.

          • Nicks87

            Corbon, double tap and underwood have some hot .45 defensive loads that are nipping at the heels of 10mm and pushing a 165gr bullet at around 1200+fps. 9mm isn’t the only cartridge that has benefitted from advancements in technology. I agree that almost any rifle round will trump any pistol round but to say FMJ .380 is as good as 9mm, .40 or .45 defensive loads is just being ridiculous.

          • gunsandrockets

            Ridiculous?

            A low powered rifle cartridge exceeds 1000 fpe.

            From a 3 inch barrel .380 generates about 190 fpe and 9mm about 300 fpe. That pitiful extra 110 fpe is not significant.

          • Phillip Cooper

            My .45 has 12 rounds in a standard double stack mag, and 15 rounds are easily available as well. Not getting the “low volume” thing here….

          • iksnilol

            for a 15 rounder in .45 you can have a 20 rounder in 9mm.

          • Phillip Cooper

            If I can’t solve the immediate problem in 15 rounds and a couple spare mags, I’m just screwed anyway.

          • gunsandrockets

            And you carry it IWB too?

            ;-D

          • Phillip Cooper

            Yes, I do.

      • Nashvone

        It’s the natural progression of the snowflake. 10mm was too much so the 40 S&W was created. Now that the snowflakes have gotten softer, everyone is going back to 9mm. Give the snowflakes another 10 to 15 years and there will be a rush on .380.

        • Twilight sparkle

          You missed that back in the heyday for 40s&w. 2008 and 2009 was when 380 really took the tiny cartridge market by storm. And I would argue that most 380s have worse recoil than most 9mms sheerly due to their size.

        • gunsandrockets

          That’s one thing you could say in favor of magnum revolvers. Load to taste. As hot or as soft-shooting as the user desires.

        • noamsaying

          Because we all know it is all about bullet placement, right? With that mantra, we should all be shooting 22s. My wife and I both shoot 40s, and laugh about the crybabies complaining about the recoil from the 40.

          • Nicks87

            It’s not an issue of being a tough guy that can handle recoil. It’s more about the physics of follow up shots, and 9mm out performs .40 in that category.

          • Wow!

            [copy pasted]
            It has been brought up that you can shoot two rounds of 9mm in thet time you can get one round of 45, and while that is true in competition, it is not so in reality. Force on force training as well as real life shootings show that there is a broad difference in situations, either one case where the shooter only has time for one accurate shot (if they can even present the firearm), or where the distances or position of cover provide enough standoff and time for multiple shots in either caliber including the full sized cartridges. Especially since the 9mm is catered to new shooters generally, they will likely have an even closer fire rate to a heavier caliber as they aren’t able to utilize the low recoil characteristics of the 9mm as effectively.

    • DanGoodShot

      I shot a .40 once…. yeah….

    • rooftopvoter
      • Phillip Cooper

        ZSU 23-4, you wuss.

        Same thing your average Libyan Youtube protester keeps in his back pocket.

  • BravoSeven

    So you had problems with the weapon not functioning properly, actually functioning dangerously, snapped an internal part of the gun off with pliers and are still using the firearm as is? I’m I the only one that finds this the most alarming part of this article?

    • Drew Coleman

      I too, find it a bit disturbing.

    • MrBrassporkchop

      It’s a Glock bro, it can handle anyfing!

    • iksnilol

      He’s the handsomest man in Afghanistan, he…. he worries not about such trivial matters.

      • DanGoodShot

        Yes, yes he is and No, he does not. All he has to do is flash his smile and the Glock will function… after it apologizes.

    • Will

      I am desperately trying to NOT say something derogatory. Shade tree gun smiths/ self taught armorers make my hemorrhoids scream.

      • Michael Wilson

        Working on a glock is very very simple. With the exception of sights. every part requires no special tools and are drop in parts. Why do you think Glocks are so popular? You need not be a gunsmith to completely disassemble a Glock. Just access to the internet and a subscription to You Tube.

    • What exactly is alarming about installing the correct ejector, and not having it working, and sharing that information for everyone else? Have you never performed some minor work on any of your firearms, or parts at all all?

      • BravoSeven601

        I never break parts that do not work properly with pliers and leave them in my weapons. I safely and correctly replace broken parts. It’s simple… Safety first.

        • I can’t afford to buy a new part every single time I might somewhat modify it by either scratching it or breaking it halfway. So I’ll try them out. In this case the risk of safety was very low, as the ejector was originally angled to the right, and thus when it broke, it was angled LESS to the right, and thus more to the LEFT, where I wanted it to go in the first place.

          • FightFireJay

            So, you have money for a 9mm conversion barrel, 9mm magazines, and 9mm ammo, but not for the ejector?

            I’m not saying that you shouldn’t modify your ejector, but dont blame your cash flow for being cheap like me.

          • Or if I did have significant cash flow, wouldn’t I have been buying a new 9mm Glock to begin with? Each additional part purchase was because I thought the part beforehand would solve all my problems, but it didn’t.

          • Phillip Cooper

            It’s an $8 part. If you’re that tight for funds what the heck are you doing playing gunsmith?

            Send address. I’ll gladly have a couple parts shipped out to you.

    • Mr. Debusy

      Maybe u stay away from real guns

  • Todd Sturniolo

    You should have proofread your story. There is actually a difference between an extractor and an ejector, and conversion and conversation.

    With Glocks being so cheap, don’t convert one; buy one made for the new caliber.

    • Edeco

      Yeah, really; my understanding is if anything ends the service of a Glock (other’s blowing it up somehow) it’ll be the frame cracking, so I’d just buy a police turn in, make sure the spring is in spec, clean off the donut residue* and use the upper.

      *I get anyone with that? I kid, I kid.

      • P161911

        If the frame cracks, Glock will replace it. Most ex cop guns are “carried a lot, shot a little”.

    • Apologies about the single use of conversation when it should have been conversion, autocorrect got me there. But I am careful to to distinguish between extractor and ejector, because I do talk about both, in different sentences, for different reasons.

    • Steven Alexander

      Since when are blocks cheap. New are all $540.00 average. (buds) Used are about a franklin cheaper. Still not cheap, in my book anyway..

      • Bigg Bunyon

        I guess “cheap” is relative, but shooting is an inexpensive hobby and $540 (although nothing to sneeze at) is a rather low cost for equipment. Take a look at Baby lock home embroidery machines and the cost of good quality thread. One of my wife’s machines retails for $15,000 and it’s a single needle. The Floriani software she uses retails for $2,500; she paid right at $1,600. With what she pays for good quality thread for a single modestly sized project, I could spend several long sessions at the range. Do you bass fish? A buddy of mine has almost $60,000 tied up in his fishing rig. Have you played golf lately? Shooting is cheap.

        • Phillip Cooper

          Nothing is cheap if you’re an idiot with “gottahaveit” syndrome.

          I fish, do well, and don’t have near that amount in it.

    • David B

      The only conversion that I’d really be interested in for a Glock (I currently don’t own one, but will probably pick one up sometime so I can play with the cool kids) would be the .50 GI conversion. I’ve never shot one, but just something about that round gets me, and the 1911s that they build in that caliber, which I’d really love, are well above my price range.

  • EzGoingKev

    You should change the title of this post. I clicked on it thinking there was a problem with Glock pistols. You played backyard mechanic and created an issue.

    • Point taken, I didn’t include conversion because it appeared too long, but it is necessary I agree.

  • Cal S.

    Oh, it’s Tulammo? I think I found your problem.

    In all seriousness, I haven’t had a day’s trouble with my converted G22, and I bought but haven’t had to replace the extractor because I didn’t want to have to do anything more than swap out the barrels. I love it, and shoot both rounds frequently.

    • BearSlayer338

      Tulammo runs just fine in my Ak’s and pistols in 9mm Makarov,but then again those guns were designed to use steel cased ammo,most pistols and rifles are designed around brass cased ammo and because of that choke on the steel cased stuff.
      I like to to think about it like this,brass cased for NATO rounds,steel cased for non-NATO rounds.

      • Cal S.

        I use Tulammo as my default range ammo in my ARs without a problem. For some reason, though, my 9mm G22 tells me to take a hike with it.

        Might be a brand-specific quirk, like Ruger and Fiocchi’s mutual hatred of each other. No idea if it’s indemic to Lone Wolf barrels.

  • ColonelColt

    It’s not a bandwagon, it’s a lifeboat fleeing a sinking cruise ship that’s built of rotten timbers.

  • MrBrassporkchop

    9×19 “bandwagon”?!?

    • ozzallos .

      It’s a fad, amirite?

  • tony

    Royal Hong Kong Police in 2005 experienced a similar issue with their 9mm glocks.
    A certain batch of 9mm ammo had hard primers designed for sub machine guns, and their glocks could not reliablely detonate these primers. Meanwhile their old stock browning high powers had no issue shooting them.

    • That’s not similar. Completely different issue.

      • Swarf

        If you didn’t read the article at all, just looked at the lead picture, and made assumptions about content based on that, it’s totally similar.

  • Wolfgar

    I converted 2 of my Gen3 Glocks from 40 S&W to 9mm . The cases would eject into my face every once in awhile and reliability was not 100% with steel case ammo. I then switched the ejector and extractor to 9mm and they run perfectly. Good catch, it could have had a very negative consequences. There are different type extractors, springs and ejectors for different model Glocks if memory serves. Could you have used the wrong parts for your gen 3 Glocks?

  • GeoJammy

    Good article and nice pictures – but who in their right mind cycles live rounds thru any pistol – but, especially a Glock? Folks, do not try this at home!!

  • Big Daddy

    I never, never had a problem on any Glock I use the .40 to 9mm conversion barrel on. Even using the .40cal ejector. Although i did switch out the ejectors since I do not plan on using 40 cal again. The extractors are the same as far as I know but since the guns were old I used the Lonewolf 9mm extractor. Still never had a problem with the 4 firearms I have, 2 G22s, 1 G23 and a G31.All use LW conversion 9mm barrels. I do not use anything but brass cased ammo. This whole article is hard to read and inaccurate. I do also change the striker spring in some of my Glocks to 6lbs.

  • Mark

    *”bear in mind”

  • Dave D

    Just add my 2 cents on a successful conversion. Used a threaded Lone Wolf barrel to convert Glock 27 to shoot 9mm. Works like a champ with only the barrel switch and even shoots suppressed without issue. Only use the conversion for a fun range toy and would not bet my life on it – even though I’ve never had a problem. Will check it for primer strikes next time I take it out.

  • guest

    The first 4 images show much of the same, and those strikes are not very likely to cause a primer to detonate because of the way primers(both Boxer and Berdan, for most common and Tula ammo respectively) are designed.
    The detonating chemical has to be “pinched” between either an anvil inside the primer (Boxer) or the one in the case itself (Berdan).
    So for CCI and similar… this is unlikely. For Federal probably coughing too hard will do it.
    At any rate don’t modify guns unless you *know* exactly what you are doing.

    The third picture from the bottom is not from a Glock though.

    • Bradley

      Tulammo is boxer primed just so you know.

      • guest

        Debatable. Because the one I shot some years ago was Berdan. However it does not matter much, as the issue at hand is the probability of setting a primer off.

  • FredXDerf

    “…bare in mind…” ? Oh the humanity!

    • 22winmag

      LBE = Load Baring Equipment

  • Sledgecrowbar

    I converted a 23 to 19 with a Lone Wolf conversion barrel, but it’s specific about using the original .40 extractor and ejector. I have extra .40 and 9mm extractors and ejectors for Glocks anyway, but maybe yours was an older barrel, I’ve read (so this is not definite) that more recent conversion barrels from more than one manufacturer move the bore (or more correctly, the outside of the breech) over laterally so the extractor and ejector for the .40 cartridge more correctly engage the 9mm cartridge, which direction though I’m not sure. Running my color-coded dummy handloads through it though, both running the slide slow and as fast as I can (although this is still not operational speed), it seems to eject correctly every time.

    I would see what Lone Wolf and maybe even other people on some Glock forums would have to say about this, I bet you’re not the first person to see it and there is likely a simpler fix than breaking ejectors and fiddling with incorrect extractors. I’m pretty sure you actually want a .40 extractor for this conversion and that may have something to do with where the base of the casing is when it hits the ejector, like the extractor doesn’t have a good grip on it and it’s moving laterally during extraction.

    • I looked all over the web, and have found other issues with the conversion, but not this particular and exact problem, of the ejector hitting the primer of rounds being ejected.

      • DIR911911 .

        I’m thinking no one else noticed

  • D.R.D.

    I did the very same conversion years ago with a Storm Lake barrel. I never run steel cased ammo. Zero issues.

  • LL1684L2

    I don’t know if the original blogs can be edited, but if so, please go back and double-check the use between “extractor” and “ejector”.

  • Bradley

    What the hell could this issue have to do with steel cases? Obviously this isn’t high quality ammunition, but does a case made out of steel somehow change where the ejector makes contact?

  • Bradley

    I am curious about the fact that the pictures seem to show the electors point of contact varying quite a bit. This makes it seem like something else might be a factor

  • DanGoodShot

    Oh boy Mr.V. I hope you’re ready for the hate. By openly admitting to working on your own gun, discovering a problem and fixing it in an unconventional manner. Than having the balls to write about it?! What where you thinking! The fury will fall quick, hard. It will come in numbers. By God you don’t have the title of Gunsmith! I hope you’re prepared for for the flurry of Hellfire comments that will befall you!
    Okay, I’m tired after oozing all that sarcasm. You saw a problem he fixed it good for you!
    Don’t let the BS comments bother you. After all, You are still the most handsome man in Afghanistan!

  • Nathan Means

    I see your point here, Its something to think about. So I am glad you decided to post it. Its just sad how the comments go straight to “whats wrong with 40?” or “glocks suck”

  • dwsharp

    That’s crap ammo at the top of the article. I have around 9000 rounds through my Glock 19 and the only time it has either failed to strike or feed is with cheap ammo. I had one light primer strike and one high primer that required the striker to be removed on the bench to get the round out of the gun. Don’t feed it steel or aluminum case ammo with junk primers and it will run well.

  • M1911

    If you want a full size Glock that shoots 9mm, for a Christ sakes just go buy a Glock 17 (or 34).

    Why people spend time trying to get conversions to work is completely beyond me.

  • Lew Siffer

    This is what I learned from your experience: have fun and change, alter, convert, modify and customize your firearms any way you want to…EXCEPT the ones you use for self defense. Do NOTHING to those; the engineers at Glock or Ruger or Smith & Wesson or even Colt have done a better job than you can in designing reliability.

  • Bdubs

    I have a gen 4 19 and light strikes are a common thing with steel cased ammo in particular Russian steel cased ammo. It’s not just converted glocks that have light strikes

  • Sianmink

    I’ve seen rounds detonated by the extractor before, but not by the ejector.

  • duh

    The boxer primer cannot fire if hit there, the anvil is in the center of the primer, not on the edge.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    “Now, could a primer have actually been detonated by the extractor on its
    way out of the slide? Maybe, maybe not. But if you look at these
    expended 9x19mm casings, the amount of depth difference between a
    successful primer strike, and a light one is much too close for comfort
    for what I want.”

    Not a fair test. The firing pin dimple in the primer is somewhat flattened by the chamber pressure. If you wanted to see the actual depth made to reliably ignite the primer, then load some primed brass without the powder or bullet and fire those, and compare them to the off-center light strikes made by the ejector in your Glock.

    I’m still planning a 40 and 9 interchangeable Glock 35, so your story is a cautionary tale for me. Thanks.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    It’s a darn shame Glock doesn’t make a 9mm.

  • Steve

    I found the article very instructive. Yes the ejector is rather brittle and resists bending. As an owner of a few Glocks I have tried some small mods in search of improving ejections when needed. Some of your readers fail to understand this is a temporary experiment not a recommended universal modification.
    I have never been a fan of caliber conversion but this is valuable information for those that try. Thanks.

  • Steve Hall

    I had some initial cycle problems with a drop in Wolf barrel in my Glock 22 but simply polished the leading edge of the chamber shelf that acts as the lock on the top and she ran smooth after that, no other modification needed, still using the .40 ejector and extractor as it is supposed to. I went with 9 to shoot cheaper ammo in LESA competition but still like .40 for home defense, its been very reliable in 9.