I was just looking at my Glock 26, H&K P2000sk, and Sig P229 next to one another on my armorer's mat after giving them a quick exterior wipe down, and I noticed that the Sig and Glock both have a very short extractor compared to the H&K. Just got me wondering, is one design inherently better or more reliable than the other?
Extractor design...short vs. long?
- Thread starter CPshooter
- Start date
- Status
Probably not. The longer extractors are probably a bit springier and suffer less wear and tear on it as well as on the casing rim (for loading a round directly into the chamber or if the design is such that the extractor has to clip over the rim every time a round is chambered from the magazine). I think the design of the extractor is more based on where they want to place the hinge and springs within the slide than anything. Or maybe looks? 
In any case I don't think one would be more reliable as its primary function is to pull and pulling isn't really impacted by length.
In any case I don't think one would be more reliable as its primary function is to pull and pulling isn't really impacted by length.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Right off hand, I can't think of any magazine-fed guns that have extractors that must slip over the rim. (Only a single-shot gun can easily do that.)
Not saying there aren't any that flip over the rim -- but it's not a common practice.
I don't know of what design constraints might dictate a LONG or SHORTER extractor -- does anyone have an idea?
plouffedaddy
Member
The SIG aficianados will soon be along for this one
I have a 229R with the long extractor that has caused a good deal of problems for SIG (mine has been flawless BTW). I don't think one's per se better than the other though--as long as it's done right.
I have a 229R with the long extractor that has caused a good deal of problems for SIG (mine has been flawless BTW). I don't think one's per se better than the other though--as long as it's done right.
I can't think of any either, but wasn't sure if there were none. Seems to me the extractor needs a hinge of some sort and a spring of some sort, so the length of the extractor could just be dictated by where there is space for those two pieces. Some guns (I think kel tecs may be this way) the extractor itself is flexible enough that it doesn't need a spring.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Anything based loosely on the John Browning design will push the round out of the magazine as it slides up the breach face and under the extractor hook.
Some that snap over during feeding:
Luger P08
Russian Makarov
HK P7
rc
Some that snap over during feeding:
Luger P08
Russian Makarov
HK P7
rc
bigfatdave
Member
Actually the Kel-Tec extractor spring is a flat spring over top of the extractor claw
There are many extractor designs, all with pros&cons ... their quality and suitability overlap with no clear "best" design, whatever fits into the slide of the gun should work, if it is made of quality materials and of sound design.
There are many extractor designs, all with pros&cons ... their quality and suitability overlap with no clear "best" design, whatever fits into the slide of the gun should work, if it is made of quality materials and of sound design.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Who said anything about Kel-Tec??
It's a basic Browning extractor derivative, and rounds should side under it, not snap over it.
rc
Walt Sherrill
Member
Who said anything about Kel-Tecs? The poster. But only after an earlier response (it's content since changed) mentioned the FLAT K-T extractor that didn't use a spring. The original comment was about how it was made, and not, if I remember correctly -- it's not there anymore -- that it snapped OVER the rim.
Someone also mentioned the H&K P7, Luger and the Makarov, etc. I've shot a P7, but never really examined it closely, so didn't notice extractor function. I had an East German Mak and several Lugers, but didn't realize that those extractors snapped OVER the rim, rather than having the round fed from beneath/behind. I'm surprised but have no way to argue the contrary, as I don't have any of those guns, now, and that function is seldom mentioned in the articles available.
Interesting things you learn on these forums.
Someone also mentioned the H&K P7, Luger and the Makarov, etc. I've shot a P7, but never really examined it closely, so didn't notice extractor function. I had an East German Mak and several Lugers, but didn't realize that those extractors snapped OVER the rim, rather than having the round fed from beneath/behind. I'm surprised but have no way to argue the contrary, as I don't have any of those guns, now, and that function is seldom mentioned in the articles available.
Interesting things you learn on these forums.
I said something about Kel Tec, it was me!!!! 
The OP was just asking if a long or short extractor is better/more reliable, and why the designs differ. I mentioned it might be better to have a longer extractor for loading single rounds (where the claw has to snap over the case rim) or if there were any that loaded from the magazine such that the claw snapped over the rim each time.
Then someone said, there aren't any designs that do that. But rcmodel pointed out that there are some, but not those based on the browning design.
Somewhere in there I mentioned some extractors (like kel tec) look so chincy that maybe they are just thin pieces of metal that rely on the extractor itself to bend rather than a true spring.
Well I just made a whole mess of this thread haven't I?!?
The OP was just asking if a long or short extractor is better/more reliable, and why the designs differ. I mentioned it might be better to have a longer extractor for loading single rounds (where the claw has to snap over the case rim) or if there were any that loaded from the magazine such that the claw snapped over the rim each time.
Then someone said, there aren't any designs that do that. But rcmodel pointed out that there are some, but not those based on the browning design.
Somewhere in there I mentioned some extractors (like kel tec) look so chincy that maybe they are just thin pieces of metal that rely on the extractor itself to bend rather than a true spring.
Well I just made a whole mess of this thread haven't I?!?
JTQ
Member
Ruger's are generally long. Glock's are relatively short.
If you look at the old Kimber 1911's when they went to the external extractor, they went with a short one, that looked strangely similar to the Glock extractor. It didn't work out well for Kimber. They went away from the external extractor, and even offered to replace entire slides on pistols equipped with external extractors with slides with internal extractors.
Other 1911's that have used external extractors, S&W and Sig use a relatively long extractor. I suppose it is whatever they can get to work.
If you look at the old Kimber 1911's when they went to the external extractor, they went with a short one, that looked strangely similar to the Glock extractor. It didn't work out well for Kimber. They went away from the external extractor, and even offered to replace entire slides on pistols equipped with external extractors with slides with internal extractors.
Other 1911's that have used external extractors, S&W and Sig use a relatively long extractor. I suppose it is whatever they can get to work.
GlackAttack
Member
My ruger sr9c has the long style extractor. I personally like it because you can drop in a round through the ejection port into the hole, and instead of ramming the extractor over the rim of the casing, you can actuate the extractor outward by pressing the rear of the extractor, and slowly put the slide home. I know this is not how your supposed to top off but it works and I prefer it to stressing the same cartridge over and over by slingshotting on an edc gun. The slingshotting causes significant setback on my gold dots after just 5 or so "slingshots".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked