Aftermarket Glock Extractors

[JConn]

I would like to preface this by saying that I am by no means an expert on Glocks, extractors, or Glock extractors but this is just my experience with the lone wolf variety. I also tried these extractors on a 2010 gen 3 G19 with roughly 3000 rounds through it. I ordered two of these the other day from midway and upon first inspection I was pretty excited about the possibilities. Compared to my #3 "narrow waist" extractor as it has come to be called, they seemed to be a better fit. Where the Glock OEM extractor sticks and requires some work to remove it from the slide, the lone wolf extractor falls out without a problem. So I popped it in and went to the range. A friend and I took turns firing the weapon while the other watched, then switched the extractor a few times. The lone wolf extractor seemed to produce less positive ejection compared to the Glock OEM extractor. A couple of times rounds barely missed our heads while firing, and once my friend got hit in the head by some rogue brass. Now this is purely non scientific, but from what I have read, this seems to mean the extractor is not doing its job as well as it should. This is not a statement about lone wolf as they do fine work but my particular extractor did not work as well as my Glock OEM extractor in my G19. I will attempt to put of pictures comparing the LW extractor to Glock OEM extractor in the coming days. Also if I have been unclear in any way just ask and I will attempt to answer questions.

[fuse]

I am the friend JConn is referring to. the spent brass from the very first round I shot out of his 19 with the LW part indeed nailed me right above the eyes. I have had this happen with a couple of my own glocks maybe every 400 rounds or so, so its certainly not unheard of to me. I do concur that the extractor or something else doesn't seem to be working as well as it should when this happens. would this be a fair assumption?

collectively we shot about 30 rounds with the LW extractor, with JConn opting to return his 19 to stock configuration for the rest of the range session. while the part technically functioned fine (note the hilariously low round count of the LW part of ~30) as mentioned above when observing the shooter we both agreed the ejection seemed more robust with the stock part.

he and I don't really have the ammo or patience to continue to test the LW part, and though we don't consider his glock or any of mine 'problem glocks', we admittedly do not shoot the sheer volume of rounds many of you do.

and so the consensus seems to be extractor loose in slide = good, extractor not loose = bad.

has anyone with a problem glock attempted to lightly polish/dremel their extractor until it fits loosely in the slide?

or is perhaps the best idea to take the todd route and obtain several factory extractors and install one that hopefully fits loosely?

[JConn]

Thanks for helping with my inadequate post much appreciated lol.

[jslaker]

has anyone with a problem glock attempted to lightly polish/dremel their extractor until it fits loosely in the slide?

This question is of interest to me as well.

[Chuck Haggard]

I worry that the new Glock extractors are MIM, and if so the hard surface on MIM parts tends to be very easy to cut right through. This leaves the chewy middle part exposed.

[JV_]

I worry that the new Glock extractors are MIM, and if so the hard surface on MIM parts tends to be very easy to cut right through. This leaves the chewy middle part exposed.

How do you know they weren't MIM before?

It's my understanding that they are (and have been for a very long time), along with the locking block.

[JHC]

I'd be surprised too if they haven't been for quite some time. Works for TRPs; should work for Glocks.

[Chuck Haggard]

How do you know they weren't MIM before?

It's my understanding that they are (and have been for a very long time), along with the locking block.

I don't for certain, but all of the MIM parts that I have seen have an appearance to them that gives it away, things like mold marks.

I'm not against MIM in general, but it just doesn't work too well for certain parts, M&P firing pins as an example.

Besides, even if they were MIM before, there is still an issue now, and cutting into the surface finish on a MIM part to get it to fit is likely a no-go.

[Mjolnir]

I'd be surprised too if they haven't been for quite some time. Works for TRPs; should work for Glocks.

Depends on the component and how it's loaded. HKs have MIM but the parts are large with relatively low load - essentially the parts seem to be designed FOR MIM manufacturing. MIM parts will not have the refined grain structure, density and tends to have more voids. The hardening is limited to a very thin case. These are the reasons sharp 1911 owners replace slide and firing pin stops as well as external safeties.

If I HAD to use MIM parts I'd make them with larger cross sectional diameters and larger chamfers and fillet radii than the equivalent milled-from-barstock part.

[JHC]

As I understand it from major MIM arguments among 1911 guys, there is very high quality MIM (SA TRP and up) and there is low quality MIM. for small parts as well. The devil is always in the details.