LC9s - bad extractor?

Okay, I didn't want to further hijack one of the other LC9s threads so I figured I'd start one on specific topic. Some may have seen my mention in other threads about how my new LC9s shoots fine in slow fire standing at the line stiff armed, but became a jam-o-matic when I tried to shoot it in IDPA "BUG" matches; worst case being three jams in one stage. All of the jams were a case of a horizontal FTE laying on top of the new round being chambered - very frustrating to clear.

I still haven't had a chance to get to the range so I can see what's really happening, but I decided to look at the extractor.

First, a healthy extractor from a Glock22 with several hundred rounds through it without a single failure even under the worst of conditions:

Note that the extractor is pushing tightly against the case, holding it in place. I had to shake the slide very hard to dislodge the empty shell.

Now, the Rugler LC9s extractor:

Note that this image is vertical, that is because the extractor is not touching the case at all so I had to hold the slide vertical in one hand and take the picture with the other. Tilt the slide in the slightest bit in any direction and the shell falls out. Also, when the barrel is in the slide and it's manually moved into battery (with the shell under the extractor, of course, as if a round had been racked normally in a fully assembled gun) the front of the extractor is almost touching the rear of the chamber block and appears to actually be touching the slanted part of the shell.

I think I've discovered why this LC9s is so picky about extraction...

I took the next logical step and removed and cleaned the extractor and spring. There was quite a bit of crud under it. It can now be pushed inward enough to lightly grasp a case (nowhere as near as strong as the Glock) but it does not return to that position by itself, even when squeaky clean and very lightly lubed with CorrosionX..

It looks like at assembly time they just grabbed an extractor and dropped it in, without doing any final fit or testing :roll:

It probably gets dirty extra quick because it's always stuck fully outward, allowing powder residue to easily blow in under it.

I'm going to try lightly stoning the extractor to see if I can free it up so it pushes inward with just spring pressure (there seems to be plenty of pressure in the spring itself, it's just that it takes extra grunt to make the extractor move).

John

Holy cow...this is getting worse by the second. I may be wrong but I think the slide is machined wrong. Without the spring and plunger in place the ejector moves freely and falls naturally to a position that would hold the case nicely. As soon as you put the spring and plunger in it cocks the ejector sideways in the channel , pushing it up toward the top of the slide, and the ejector can then be pushed to the correct position but it will not return there by itself.

It looks like the ejector slot and the hole for the spring and plunger are not on the same axis. It's hard to show in pictures, but it looks like the hole for the spring and plunger are offset towards the bottom of the ejector channel by several thousands - enough so it's actually visible. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a good picture of both sides of the hole at the same time, but the two following closeups kind of show what I'm talking about.

Notice how on this picture of the bottom of the ejector slot the hole appears to possibly actually be shaved into the side of the channel just slightly:


And then this picture of the top of the ejector slot where it looks like the hole is standing off from the channel just slightly:


This might be an optical delusion...but I've been staring at it through every magnifying device I have, plus blowing it up with macro photos, and I think it's real.

In any case, the one thing I do know is that when the spring and plunger are installed the ejector is pushed very tightly against the top of the channel with a fairly large gap along the bottom of the channel.

I really don't want to have to return this thing to Ruger after going to all the trouble to put TFO sights on it but I don't think that there is a fix for this slide if the hole and channel really are off axis of each other. Since it's a very pretty paperweight right now I might see if putting a slight angle across the face of the "blade" on the plunger that rides in the slot on the ejector. It's worth a try.

So, I believe Bill died in 2006 or 2007 - did he retire before that or was he active in managing the company right up until his death? The reason I ask is I think I'm going to avoid buying any other Rugers that weremanufactured after he left...

John

Looks like I'm calling Ruger first thing in the morning. This is ridiculous!

Yeah, I'm going to have to calm down for a day or two before I call or they'll think I'm a raving lunatic or something. One has to wonder how many thousands of people may be carrying jam-o-matics in total confidence because they've never fired it in anything but stand up, stiff-armed, slow fire. How can you even think you're doing even cursory QC when you don't notice that the ejector on the gun you're shipping out doesn't tilt inward slightly on an empty chamber?

I have another picture I took later that pretty clearly shows how the plunger contacts the ejector way off center. When I get a chance to crop it I'll post it as well. I also took a picture with the spring and plunger in place but the ejector removed. Again, it looks like the hole for the spring is offset to the bottom, though again, hard to say for certain without precision measuring equipment.

I don't know whether this is a machining problem or a design flaw. I would have thought that they were using precision CNC equipment and oddities like this couldn't happen. I guess that's what I get for thinking...

The sad thing is, no matter what Ruger does with this gun I'll never carry it again. I love the compact size and the feel of the trigger, I put hours into reshaping the trigger guard to make it shoot better for me and fitting TFO sights to it. But I have absolutely zero faith in its ability to deliver at crunch time. I've been carrying it for months thinking it was dead reliable after putting a few hundred rounds through at the range...but from the first time I tried to shoot it under "stress" it has failed over and over, and I now understand why. (On the plus side, at least I know it wasn't a matter of my limp-wristing because of deterioration of muscles.)

I guess I'll start shopping for a Glock 26...didn't want to carry anything that thick but at least I have more confidence that it will go bang every time I pull the trigger until the magazine is empty...

John

My LC9 went back to Ruger.

They fixed it for free.

My first gun to go back after 40-some years of shooting and owning guns. Ruger's made millions of them and it was finally my turn to get one not exactly right.

Mine has the same kind of jams. About 6 out of 100 rounds.

The problem is...this doesn't seem to be unique to me...and it really only shows up when the gun is fired under less than ideal circumstances so I'm betting there may be a LOT of people out there who think the gun is great...just like I did until about three weeks ago. I had somewhere around 350 rounds through this thing with perfect reliability (after polishing the feed ramp). It's only when the gun is at an angle, or maybe limp wristed just a little bit, or what have you that the weak extraction shows up. Given that it's a defensive pistol I have a real problem with anything that will only work reliably under ideal conditions.

I created a PDF document with pictures and description and sent a message to Ruger's online customer support to ask for an email address to send the document to. I really don't want to talk to a flesh'n'blood person until I can do so without losing my religion... :wink:

John

Why not just ask them for a shipping label and let the pro's handle it?

hittman said:

Why not just ask them for a shipping label and let the pro's handle it?

Click to expand...

Uhh...maybe because those are the same "pros" who shipped a purely defensive pistol with not one, but three, defects that could cause the pistol to malfunction at exactly the wrong time.
1) The feed ramp was so rough from the factory it would not feed wide-mouthed hollow points even close to reliably.
2) The USA mag that came with the gun would release uncommanded in the holster every time I turned my torso (at least it didn't drop under recoil, as it has for some).
3) The extractor is screwed up causing the gun to malfunction under anything but ideal shooting circumstances.

So, yeah, it's going back to Ruger, for sure. Doesn't much matter what they do, I'll never carry it again. They can replace the whole gun and I'll still never carry it. If one is going to carry an auto-pistol for defense one must have absolute faith in the company producing the weapon because an auto-pistol is complex enough that no ordinary user is going to be able to try it under every circumstance to see where it might fail. As I said, I loved this pistol and was quite confident in it until I discovered that it doesn't like to be shot at an angle, etc. So they fix the extractor or replace the slide or whatever...what's the next thing that I'm not going to know about until it causes malfunctions at the worse possible time?

A revolver is a little simpler device and an ordinary user can test it pretty thoroughly. But for an auto-pistol I've got to have faith in the company behind the gun...not faith that they'll "make it right" when something like this is discovered by a customer, but faith that they'll do everything possible to prevent these kinds of things from leaving the factory in the first place.

This particular issue is so insidious precisely because it is the kind of thing that most owners of the pistol are never going to discover, even if their pistol is defective. Until they try to shoot it in realistic, poor circumstances, and it jams because the shell slips out of the extractor because the gun is on an angle or what have you. In a gun I'm using for plinking I can live with less than perfect confidence in the weapon...for a purely defensive pistol any doubt is unacceptable.

The really sad thing is that this is basically a case of my having bought a $330 paper weight (not to mention another $200 in sights, magazines, and IWB holster). I may recover some money on the sights and magazines but I'm not the kind of guy who can just sell a gun I don't trust to some other poor slob so even if Ruger replaces this with a brand new one or claims to have repaired it...it's going to be a safe queen because I can't in good conscience even sell it.

Are you more interested in proving to Ruger your knowledge of their failures or getting the gun fixed?

If you have no confidence in their $300 product, trade it for a Sig or CZ.

BTW, let me know if you're gonna sell the sites and mags, I could be interested.

Will do on the sights and mags...though I've got a friend here locally with an LC9 and he may want them. I will probably end up with a Glock 26 for CCW...I almost chose that over the LC9s to begin with but really didn't want to carry something that thick, especially when I have to tuck my shirt in. I've owned a few Glocks and put thousands of rounds down range with them under competition conditions for twenty-odd years without even one malfunction.

It's a shame...I really tried and tried to "like" this pistol but the extractor issue was just the final straw in shaking my confidence not just in this specimen but in Ruger's QC. I used to have a Mark II and still have a Single Six convertible - both were superb guns but they were made many years ago.

It's interesting that the LC9S uses the same extractor, spring, and plunger as the LC9 and LCP. I haven't been aware that this has been a serious problem afflicting those firearms. Is there just a chance that you might have been unfortunate enough to have purchased a bad one?

Stuff does happen. I had an SR-22 with a faulty slide stop. Ruger made it right in less than two weeks at no expense to me. I'm so delighted with that pistol that I bought a second for my wife. After many thousands of rounds through these without additional problems I'm delighted.

I'm sorry you're unhappy. But I'm not going to let your bad experience deter me from purchasing an LC9S. That would bring my Ruger firearm total to 17. I'll continue to trust them.

I agree with you about Glocks. Had a G30 when IL granted us CCW's but it was just too big to hide comfortably. And there's no arguing they are insanely reliable.

That being said, two of my local friends have that new .380 ACP (Model 42?) Glock and my goodness what a problem those were initially. Both went back to Glock for a free fix to cure lite primer strikes, FTF, FTE, etc. Still today they have to load them with the hottest 380 ammo on the market for them to cycle properly.

I couldn't tell, the pictures were not BIG ENOUGH!

First post here. Hi. I took a look at my lc9s after reading about the extractor issue and mine has a large gap as well between the extractor and the cartridge. it will just fall out if not held upright. Has anybody else checked theirs and if so ,,, any issues? I had one stove pipe at about the 50 round count but have not tried yet shooting at different angles. I will as soon as it warms up a little. Probably Saturday or so.

Did you look at page one on this post? OldPhart noted that problem in detail

Thanks for response. Yes I did read all the post. I was just saying I have the same issue and wanting to know if any one else has it as well.

Minor update. I've been doing a lot of online research. It seems weak extractors aren't unique to the LC9/LC9s...the M&P Shield seems to have similar issues though not to the same degree.

Just for giggles I figured I'd see if anybody had aftermarket extractors for the LC9s...none that I could find. In the course of that research though I noticed that I couldn't find a single source that has LC9 extractors in stock. Springs and plungers everywhere, the extractors themselves nary a one...not even at shopruger.com. Somehow I don't think this is entirely coincidental. It also means that the chance of getting my pistol back quickly once it goes to Ruger is probably not that great. Not that it matters a whole lot. As soon as I get a little time to make the rounds of the local shops I'll be carrying a Glock 26. No rush on getting the LC9s back since I won't ever carry it again, anyway.

sjg56k said:

First post here. Hi. I took a look at my lc9s after reading about the extractor issue and mine has a large gap as well between the extractor and the cartridge. it will just fall out if not held upright. Has anybody else checked theirs and if so ,,, any issues? I had one stove pipe at about the 50 round count but have not tried yet shooting at different angles. I will as soon as it warms up a little. Probably Saturday or so.

Click to expand...

Try shooting the gun under "simulated stress" and realistic scenarios and you'll probably experience more problems. If your extractor is loose like mine it will work okay under ideal circumstances - i.e. standing flat-footed at a firing line slow-firing with a good two-hand hold. But if the gun is at an angle, slightly limp wristed, or in motion from not having fully settled from the previous shot (i.e. in very rapid-fire scenarios) the shell slips out of that loose extractor and then as the next round comes up from the magazine it pins the shell more-or-less horizontally against the top of the chamber. That's been my experience, anyway.

BTW, that's why I think the problem is so insidious. There may be hundreds...even thousands...of these guns out there with problems but very, very few people are going to shoot them under the kind of circumstances I've described...until that one time they need to defend themselves against an attacker in a split second after snatching the weapon from the holster and firing rapidly for perhaps the first time ever...