Glock 22 to 17: do I have to switch ejector housing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1KPerDay

1KPerDay

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
20,876
Location
Happy Valley, UT
I assume so. I have a gen 3 Glock 22 and don’t love shooting .40.

considering a conversion barrel but I have one in my 23 and it’s not super accurate nor reliable.

thoughts on conversion barrel and maybe changing extractors versus trying to find a complete G17 upper and swapping the ejector housing?
 
Last edited:
Making all the required changes for a full conversion should improve reliability, but accuracy should be mostly a function of the conversion barrel.

A truly complete conversion would require changing the barrel (conversion barrel), magazine, extractor, ejector (I don't think Glock sells the ejectors separately anymore so you would need the entire trigger housing), firing pin and the spring loaded bearing.

If I were going to use the gun solely at the range, I would start with the conversion barrel and magazine initially. Then I would consider other changes (ejector, then extractor/SLB) if reliability were an issue.

If I were going to use the gun for self-defense, I would change everything on the list.
 
Firing pin is different?? Why?

yeah this is for range and possibly informal competition only. For self defense I’d run it in stock .40 configuration.
 
I don't know why, but the G22 and G17 have different firing pins.

If you're just doing this for the range, I would definitely just try the conversion barrel and magazine to start with.
 
I got one of those police turn-in Model 22's a couple of years ago.

I bought a 9mm conversion barrel and a Glock 17 magazine for it.

I have shot hundred of rounds of 9mm through it since with zero malfunctions.

For range toy, at least, I would see no reason to make any other changes.
 
Out of curiosity I did a search on this conversion and most of what I found said changing the barrel and magazines should do the trick but invariably as you go deeper into the articles and write ups changing the extractor is also mentioned “for added reliability”.

Good to know should I ever get a smokin’ deal on a G22.
Thanks for posting and asking the question. :thumbup:
 
Will a gen 4 slide assembly work in a gen 3 frame assuming I also swap the RSA or are the frames incompatible?

I think I’m going to just get a conversion barrel but just in case a see a smoking deal on a Gen 4 top end...
 
Also for those considering a conversion barrel: you DON’T change the ejector from a .40 to 9 factory part in that case. The conversion barrel is designed to work with the .40 ejector. If you use the 9mm ejector you can potentially hit the primer with the ejector when clearing a live round and cause a detonation.
 
I got my barrel and magazine for $126 OTD: $99 barrel, $27 magazine, free shipping. It has never malfunctioned with either 40 caliber ammo or 9mm. I can change it from one to the other in about 30 seconds.

I must respectfully disagree that it would be better to sell the G22 and get a G17. Having both is nice and the cost was minimal.

Glock G22

Glock G22

 
Guess I could have been clearer.
You were considering a G17 top end. In my neighborhood a G22 is going to cost you $339 + transfer. If you buy it face to face its going to cost you at least $400.
The cheapest I have seen a Glock top end is $350. Of course, prices in your neighborhood may differ.
 
The conversion barrel is designed to work with the .40 ejector. If you use the 9mm ejector you can potentially hit the primer with the ejector when clearing a live round and cause a detonation.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to understand how this could be true. The round has to be held in very close to exactly the same position that it would be in a 9mm or the firing pin won't hit the primer properly. With the 9mm round in the same position as in a 9mm gun I don't see how the 40 ejector would work better on 9mm rounds than the 9mm ejector.

Given that the rounds are positioned the same and have the same sized primers, I really don't see how the 9mm ejector is going to be any more likely to hit the primer in a conversion gun than in a standard 9mm. I have heard people state that using the 9mm ejector when switching back to the .40Cal isn't safe but don't understand the reasoning and haven't seen anything that backs up the claim.

I've also seen claims that the conversion barrels have an offset breech, but I don't understand why any significant offset would be needed or how it would work given that the primer still needs to line up with the firing pin which is centered in the breech. If there is an offset, it would have to be very small--so small that I can't imagine that it would really have any significant impact on where the ejector hits the cartridge head.

Furthermore, if the breech were offset, it makes sense to me to move it to the right to get the rim of the cartridge closer to the extractor so there's a good purchase on the rim for extraction. That would move the primer farther away from the ejector.

Finally, I've seen very precise measurements of conversion barrels that show no offset and haven't seen anything on any conversion barrel manufacturer's website talking about offset breeches.

It is certainly true that you don't want to unload a live round in such a way that it could possibly fall back into the ejection port and possibly get the primer smashed against the ejector when the slide closes, but that's true of any semi-auto pistol with a fixed ejector, regardless of caliber.

What I think is that people who want to do the conversions and want to keep it simple have collectively, over the years, come up with a lot of rationalizations/reasons for why nothing other than a barrel swap is necessary. And since it's often true that the conversion barrels will run reliably without other changes, that "confirms" all the supposition/speculation to the point that it has become "fact" by being repeated so many times.

I'll admit that this post is light on hard evidence and heavy on "hand-waving". I would be interested in seeing evidence that conversion barrels move the primer closer to the ejector, either in the form of precise measurements on such a barrel or in the form of claims by a manufacturer.
 
1KPerDay said:
I assume so. I have a gen 3 Glock 22 and don’t love shooting .40.

considering a conversion battery but I have one in my 23 and it’s not super accurate nor reliable.

thoughts on conversion barrel and maybe changing extractors versus trying to find a complete G17 upper and swapping the ejector housing?
Click to expand...

I 'converted' my G-23 to a G-19,my G-35 to a G-34,my G-27 to a G-26.

All function perfectly with hundreds of rounds through them all.

The only thing I changed was the purchase of a CONVERSION barrel for them all,and the magazines.

Works for me !.
 
JohnKSa said:
I'm trying to understand how this could be true. The round has to be held in very close to exactly the same position that it would be in a 9mm or the firing pin won't hit the primer properly. With the 9mm round in the same position as in a 9mm gun I don't see how the 40 ejector would work better on 9mm rounds than the 9mm ejector.

Given that the rounds are positioned the same and have the same sized primers, I really don't see how the 9mm ejector is going to be any more likely to hit the primer in a conversion gun than in a standard 9mm. I have heard people state that using the 9mm ejector when switching back to the .40Cal isn't safe but don't understand the reasoning and haven't seen anything that backs up the claim.

I've also seen claims that the conversion barrels have an offset breech, but I don't understand why any significant offset would be needed or how it would work given that the primer still needs to line up with the firing pin which is centered in the breech. If there is an offset, it would have to be very small--so small that I can't imagine that it would really have any significant impact on where the ejector hits the cartridge head.

Furthermore, if the breech were offset, it makes sense to me to move it to the right to get the rim of the cartridge closer to the extractor so there's a good purchase on the rim for extraction. That would move the primer farther away from the ejector.

Finally, I've seen very precise measurements of conversion barrels that show no offset and haven't seen anything on any conversion barrel manufacturer's website talking about offset breeches.

It is certainly true that you don't want to unload a live round in such a way that it could possibly fall back into the ejection port and possibly get the primer smashed against the ejector when the slide closes, but that's true of any semi-auto pistol with a fixed ejector, regardless of caliber.

What I think is that people who want to do the conversions and want to keep it simple have collectively, over the years, come up with a lot of rationalizations/reasons for why nothing other than a barrel swap is necessary. And since it's often true that the conversion barrels will run reliably without other changes, that "confirms" all the supposition/speculation to the point that it has become "fact" by being repeated so many times.

I'll admit that this post is light on hard evidence and heavy on "hand-waving". I would be interested in seeing evidence that conversion barrels move the primer closer to the ejector, either in the form of precise measurements on such a barrel or in the form of claims by a manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, didn’t make much sense to me either and I’d love to see some evidence also. I admit I’m just passing on info stated by others (but I suppose the vast majority of our knowledge on multiple subjects is the same type of “data”), but it has been stated fairly emphatically by some people whom I trusted for accurate info in the past.

It would be cool to have someone smarter than me do a “myth busters” episode of this particular myth.
 
First of all, everywhere I said "offset breech" I should have said "offset chamber".

Second, I found one source (here on THR, actually) from a person who wrote to KKM about conversion barrels and was told that there is no offset.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/conversion-barrel-conundrums-help.743267/
"KKM has courteously replied to my question on this, stating that extractor change is not necessary and, that there is no "offset" in the manufacture of the conversion bbls."​
Also included in that post was a response from Lone Wolf who suggested that an extractor change wasn't necessary but would make sense for a permanent conversion.
"Similarly, Lonewolf rep. replied that changing out the extractor is not necessary but would be fine if the conversion is permanent and dedicated to shooting only 9mm."​

I also found some posts on Glocktalk (which I will not link here because sometimes their links do strange things) that showed measurements of a Lone Wolf conversion barrel with no significant offset (possible offset of about 0.0015") and another post with similar measurements of a Lone Wolf conversion barrel showing no detectable offset.

Also a post on Glocktalk claiming to have information from another person who contacted two conversion barrel manufacturers (without saying which ones) who both stated there was no offset.

Also another post on Glocktalk from a person claiming to have personally contacted Lone Wolf and Bar Sto who both said their conversion barrels have no offset.

There is a review where the reviewer claims the offset existed and I found it referenced more than once in the searching I did. https://concealednation.org/2013/10/review-lone-wolf-40-9-conversion-barrel-for-glock-27/ The reviewer makes the claim about the chamber being offset but provides no information as to how that conclusion was formed. No measurements, no citation from a manufacturer, nothing at all. I don't think this is where it all started, but it does seem to have legitimized the claim somewhat although without providing any evidence to support it.

I've also seen a number of posts on various forums where various people claim the offset is there but then, when challenged, never provide any information/measurement data/citations (other than perhaps the review mentioned above) to confirm the offset when asked for evidence.

Anyway, that all seems moot as, in most cases, it seems that neither an extractor nor ejector change is necessary for satisfactory reliability in a range-use only gun.

I think everything points to going with the proper magazine and a conversion barrel for range use only with other changes only required if reliability is an issue or if the conversion is intended to be permanent or for self-defense. In fact, for range use only, you might get away with using the original mags. The feedlip spacing is a different, but maybe not enough to cause significant problems.
 
FWIW, I bought a police trade-in Glock 22 Gen 4 from AIM Surplus, and have had no issues after installing their conversion barrel ( I believe it was $89), and switching to 9mm magazines. I only use the 9mm for cheap range practice and carry the 22 in it's original chambering in a Galco Classic Lite.
 
I have converted close to a dozen Glock 22 and 23 to 9 mm with nothing more than a barrel and magazine change. Each has seen multiple thousands of rounds thru the conversion, and none have had issues with feeding, primer strikes, extraction, or ejection.
 
I have been running a g22 with a 9mm barrel for years. Only changed the barrel. Everything else was left alone. Almost zero malfunctions. Even with the 40 mag.
 
This thread is very interesting. I own a gen 1 G22 I never shoot as I have no interest in .40 to speak of. If I wanted to run 9mm in it, would I just look for a G17 barrel and magazine? (my pistol was made in 1995 if that makes a difference).

Edit- looks like mine is a gen 2, not a 1.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Conversion barrel conundrums: HELP!
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Rarebird
R
M
  • Locked
Conversion Barrel for Glock 22
Replies
2
Views
509
R&J
R
C
  • Locked
Glock TCM conversion vexes me...
Replies
12
Views
5K
OilyPablo
OilyPablo
G
  • Locked
Conversion Barrel
Replies
6
Views
331
mokin
mokin
D
  • Locked
Glock 27 40 to 9 conversion: Can I use the 9mm ejector for my 40 barrel?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Bamashooter
B
Back
Top