Mg2

[Gwhite]

The extractor tip geometry that seems to be required to work well is unlike any pistol extractor setup I've ever seen before. If my theory is right, it works by supporting the case at three locations instead of the usual two (extractor tip & rim pocket on slide face).

It's a bit difficult to explain well without drawings and pictures. The case is still in contact with the slide pocket on the left, but the extractor hits the case wall at the forward edge of the blunt tip in the photos.

4-1-22 Extr #2 +1 deg w Case (Clamped).jpg (45.42 KiB) Viewed 4838 times

That tips the case to the left, and the extractor slides down the case wall until the rim of the case hits the back of the extractor tip.

4-1-22 Extr #2 +1 deg w Case (Unclamped).jpg (45.07 KiB) Viewed 4838 times

The case is now held at three locations, but I think the key thing is that the contact at the back of the tip is a line and not just a point. The edge of the extractor is in contact with the front of the rim, which is (vaguely) flat. When the case is held this way, you can actually feel resistance to the mouth of the case tipping downward.

If your extractor is marginal in an MG2, you will typically experience jams after the 5th round. I think this is because there's nothing in the carrier to prevent the case mouth from sagging downward. That bounces off the slide rail, knocking the case loose prematurely.

The piece I haven't figured out is why nobody else's pistols require this 3-point support. It may have to do with the really fast cycling with the light slide. If the pistol pops up really fast in recoil, inertia will tend to hold the case mouth down.

In any event, those are my current theories... The extractor in the above photos shoots Aguila just fine now, and in several hundred rounds, hasn't bounced a case off the slide rail once.

[Ricardo]

Wow, you guys have done the rest of us a great service, doing all that experimentation! The slide weight issue makes sense to me (intuitively, which means nothing!). GWhite, the three extractors you show look a bit different to me in the lower photos. When you say you've adjusted the angle, do you mean the angle of the tiny bevel at the tip, or the interior angle (the "hook" so to speak)?

Your theory makes sense to me; most hangups do happen with the last round in my case; but not all by any means. I can't believe that this design is deliberate! Too finicky for the variation in ejector geometry.

I'm really encouraged by the findings of the both of you. Matchguns should be paying you for R&D consulting!

[Gwhite]

The "tip angle" refers to the angle of the blunt tip relative to the barrel axis. Unfortunately, it's hard to measure exactly. I have a tool grinder and a 3D printed extractor holder that I can use to adjust the angle in precise increments, but it's all referenced to the straight back edge of the extractor. I'm working on way to measure it photographically, but I'm not sure how well it will work. It appears that there is at least +/- a degree or two of margin, possibly more.

I've been working all along with the US importer, and I can't say enough good things about the support they have provided. Sometimes it can take a while to get them, but the factory has also been good about supplying parts. My long term goal is three fold:

1) Solve the pesky ejection issues that have plagued the EVO for a long time. I hope I'm getting close to that.

2) See if that will allow me to shorten the ejector to the point where it will permit clearing a loaded round without using the extractor lever. The pre-EVO's worked that way, and I don't see why the EVO can't as well.

3) Improve the longevity of the design. For example, the extractor has such a death grip on the cases that the cartridge rims are wearing a groove in the left side of my slide. I think that is why my first extractor stopped working. The groove got deep enough the extractor couldn't swing far enough to keep a reliable grip on all cases:

1088 Case Wear from Extractor Force.jpg (52.89 KiB) Viewed 4816 times

It's easy enough to stone down the extractor so it can swing in further, but at some point, that's not going to do it. I can at least slow down the wear with a weaker extractor spring, but I need to get the geometry figured out first.

[mmcyrus]

@Gwhite
I got quite same impression with mine MG2 from 2018 (just pre-Evo). I'm waiting for parts and then I'm going to try few things as well. Definitely I would like to try attaching tungsten weights to slow down slide. First, I need to figure out how to make it nice and tidy.

[Gwhite]

One issue that may come up if you add weights is cracked slides. The EVO's around the S/N 1050 - 1100 range had slides that tended to crack at the thin spot above the barrel hole. The original MG2's had a buffer in front of the center part of the frame where the barrel goes through, but they decided they weren't necessary. Kang Chua suggested using an O-ring, and I found one that would work as a buffer.

https://www.mcmaster.com/9558K21/

I installed one after many thousands of rounds, but my slide eventually cracked anyway. I installed one on my wife's pistol (1 serial number different), which hadn't been fired nearly as much, and her slide is still fine. I believe Kang is installing them in all the new EVO's. If you don't have one, they are cheap insurance.

[Dcforman]

GWhite, do you have a manufacturer/part number for that Oring?

Dave

[Gwhite]

Thanks to the auto formatting in the forum software, they stripped out the blank line I put in after it, so it's hard to see. There's a link to the McMaster Carr part # just above the picture. It's here: https://www.mcmaster.com/9558K21/

[Dcforman]

Oh geez. Whoops. Thanks!

Dave

[m_morea@yahoo.com]

i have a mint condition match gun mg2 that i would consider selling BUT it is missing the long front clip- meaning the magazine- probably not what its called in this case

[M-1903A4]

I know Neal Stepp at ISS could order Matchguns, but whether he still will or not is unknown. I bought my MG2RF and MG5 from him when they first came out. I know he was getting frustrated with the lack of response on some issues and had to send my MG2 back to Italy for repair. I got several extra magazines since mine did crack and break where the seam was located. I have both the regular and rapid fire slides from one of the first manufactured MG2's and I have had no issues with feeding or cracking of either slide.

[Shiloh]

I have a MG2 EVO RF with a serial number in the questionable area mentioned above (1050-1100). It had no slide buffer when I got it. I notice a slight amount of peening on the frame where the slide hit it when going back. I tried the O-ring but had occasional problems. Then installed the buffer used for both the MG2 and the MG4. After several thousand rounds, I have had no problems at all regarding operation. I have recently passed the 10,000-round mark.

I did find that I could no longer lock the slide back with the buffer installed. I later found out that the reason that the EVO RF did not come with the buffer installed at the factory was because the frame lacked the necessary clearance and the solution determined at the factory was to modify the EVO RF frame. The factory decided not to do that.

I have since reduced the thickness of the buffer enough to allow me to now be able to lock the slide back. That, given what I have written above in the above paragraph, has fixed my lock back issue. With or without the buffer installed, I could still insert an Empty Chamber Indicator necessary for Bullseye/Precision Pistol matches.

With the modified buffer now installed, I have solved the lock back issue while also providing a necessary and ample cushion between the slide and frame.

[Gwhite]

I must say that I'm confused by reports of trouble using the O-ring buffer. I have three Evo's that all work fine with them, and I've set up two others that (as far as I know) haven't had any issues.

Very strange...

[Shiloh]

Indeed.

Perhaps if we had a timeline and serial number range for each of the “Morini Mods”, we could then document the various issues that have followed and have a much better idea of what to expect and to better provide solutions.

Obviously, there is a difference between MG 2’s, MG2 EVO’s, and the MG2 EVO Rapid Fire (RF) as discussed above. That may be the reason that I had issues with my RF using the O-Ring.

My experience is a much older MG2, a fairly recent MG2 EVO RF, and a fairly recent MG4. The earlier MG2 had only one problem – a broken extractor. Neal Stepp and Stefano at MG provided the part. The MG2 EVO RF had slide problems. Kang sent another and that fixed that problem. The MG4 (32 S&WL & ACP) has been relatively problem-free but I haven’t played with it much. Still prefer the GSP 32.

I had a Pardini HP and SP. The variations of each made it impossible to interchange calibers. Some bolt were not as round as others, some had different buffer configurations (a bunch of internal O-rings inside the bolt, a rubber bumper at the rear of the bolt, and buffer/no buffer at the end of the frame. Or an odd configuration of each). I understand that Pardini now makes the conversions (22, 32 S&WL, and 32 ACP) interchangeable.
Walther GSP’s are not necessarily interchangeable before 1978 with frames and barrels (pin location in the rear of the barrel/shroud being the main issue).

I have to wonder if there are differences in the RF slides of the Pardini’s and the new GSP 500. Are the slides different like the MG? Are the frames different?

The major difference between the 3 makes appears to be that MG changes weren’t documented and those differences appear to be the reason for some of the problems experienced. All 3 are outstanding pistols, including the MG when it works without complications.

[Gwhite]

One of the issues is that with modern computer controlled machining, Morini could make changes willy nilly. No need to change tooling, just change the CAD file. The first two Evo's I got for my wife and myself differ by 1 in serial number, but they came with different strength recoil springs, and who knows what other internal changes. I've examined a number of different carriers over the last 5 years, and other than the ones in the first two pistols (which had feeding issues with long CCI ammo), no two were alike. Some of the changes I've observed were good and fixed issues, but others were ill conceived and abandoned later.

One reason I bought two initially was to evaluate them as a possible replacement for the Benellis the college team I help coach shoots. There is no way I would ever give MG2's to students. If they aren't maintained properly, they will jam & fire out of battery, and you can't easily eject a loaded round. I love shooting mine, but it's not suitable for beginners, no matter how well it shoots.

[Shiloh]

If a MG2 or a certain production run, regardless of variant, is unique, then solutions for problems are unique as well. What works for one pistol may very well not work for others.

[Gwhite]

On the plus side, working on MG2's has raised my pistol debugging skills to a whole new level... I'm fortunate(?) that we had a pandemic right after I got my first one, and had lots of time to study it. Being mostly retired, I've continued, but at a slower pace.