When did Glock start using MIM parts? I'm looking at a used Gen 3 19 and 17, anyone know when Glock had issues with the gen 3's?

About the time they started using MIM parts.  BTF

It really doesn't matter...they just work.

Might help if you knew when the Glocks you're looking at are made.  What would a post-MIM date (which doesn't exist anyway) mean to you without that information?

I have the proof dates from both guns, just trying to find out if they were made prior to any problems Glock had with the Gen 3 guns and use of MIM parts. I have heard that anything pre 2011 is GTG but I'm trying to confirm that. Not a big deal either way as any real reported problems have been few, but I am curious as both guns will be used for defensive purposes.

Slow down on that kool-aid, hoss.

Glock's quality has steadily gone downhill since the late Gen3 / Gen4 series. They're no longer the titans of reliability that they used to be and several manufacturers are stepping up to the plate and making guns that are just as reliable.

MIM started in 2009.

Thats what I hear but I have a 9/9/08 G32 bought brand new that has a MIM striker so I question how accurate that is.

It's not as simple as a date. It started around the MXX prefix serial ##. Around the time the Gen 4's came out. Many Gen 3 guns came out with the same MIN parts as the Gen 4.

The name isn't hoss... and you can take your condescending attitude elsewhere...

Oh please. Their reputation of reliability hasn't been tarnished one bit by the blown out of proportion claims of gen 4 "problems".

Is that why the British Armed forces are now using a Glock 17 and the Philippine Police force just purchased 74,000 G17 pistols , because they suck ?

Actually, it's cuz glock all but gave them away, ubber dirt cheap....knowing they would make major money on keeping em running/pieces parts and PR....

I haven't experienced this myself, but heard it in the armorer's course I took back in April 2013. The instructor said, flat out, that Glock now recommends snap caps for "excessive" dry firing. When asked what constituted "excessive", we were told anything more than needed to field strip the gun. When asked why, the instructor said that there were a "few" PDs experiencing broken firing pin tips, although he declined to mention which ones and how many. He wouldn't come right out and say it, but he hinted real heavily that the broken firing pins from dry fire were MIM firing pins. Before MIM, Glock said flat out that the guns could be dry fired to your heart's content. Now, with the advent of MIM firing pins, you need snap caps to prevent the firing pin tip from breaking?

Also, although again I haven't experienced it, I have heard and read about MIM extractors wearing out within a very short time, as in 1000-2000 rds. The extractor claws supposedly round off or chip. Aside from abuse (which I have seen), when was the last time you heard about the old style, machined casting extractors rounding off or chipping?

Again, although again I have never seen it myself, I have also read and heard about the MIM locking blocks breaking. You very occasionally heard about one of the old, machining casting locking blocks break, but very rare and usually when the recoil spring was so worn that the slide had very excessive velocity under recoil, and then usually with .40 guns. I have heard and read about a lot more since the MIM locking blocks. SO, tell me again how MIM is so much better than the old parts?

Bub75

How do you know if they're MIM parts?

What parts should be a concern?

Is there a source for OEM non-MIM parts?

MIM firing pins will have molded in rings around them up near the firing pin tip to designate different calibers. I can't remember what rings indicate what caliber right off the top of my head, but that is their purpose. MIM extractors and locking blocks will have something looking like a nipple somewhere on them. The extractors, IIRC, are usually on the top side (when installed). The locking blocks, again IIRC (which is sad, the locking block on my issued G22 is MIM and I can't remember for sure where the sprue mark is) are on the bridge of metal that the barrel lug hits to unlock. The nipple is where the metal slurry is injected into the mold.

I have heard and read that the firing pins, the locking blocks and the extractors are all subject to breakage and accelerated wear. I have never experienced it, but I have heard and read about quite a few experiences Take it for what it is worth; I'm sure that, for every 1 report you hear, there are probably thousands of trouble free guns. MIM seems to work well on parts that were designed to be MIM. The trouble seems to be when it is used for parts that were designed for some other manufacturing method that was adapted to MIM for cost savings. For example, a lot of the parts on S&W M&P guns are MIM and you never hear about breakage or anything else because the parts were designed to be MIM when the pistol was developed. Glock parts were designed to be manufactured by other methods (machined castings for extractors and locking blocks, for example) and the instructor in my last class came right out and said that they started using MIM for cost savings.

As far as OEM non-MIM parts, good frikkin' luck. As soon as Glock started using MIM, the old parts were snapped up. As far as I know, unless you are talking about things like extractors for very old, 1st Gen guns, everything OEM is MIM now, and the old parts may be by now, too. If you want milled or machined castings, you have to go aftermarket. IIRC, Apex extractors are machined castings, just like the original OEM parts. Of course, they are also somewhere around $60.00 the last time I looked.

Good luck, Like I posted, I honestly think that the whole MIM thing is somewhat overblown. I don't like it, but I also haven.t read or seen anything about large scale parts failure, just individual guns here and there. MIM parts are kinda like computers. If they don't fail immediately, they are usually good to go for the long run.

Bub75

Thank you, Bub

While you're correct about MIM dangers being largely overblown, it takes just a 30 second look into the 1911 forum to see what type of reputation MIM parts can give a company. Check out how much Kimber is criticized for it. I'm guessing GLOCK owners aren't the types to care about such a thing, but having parts that can be seen as unreliable can be devastating to a gun company. GLOCK's reputation was built on reliability, and a 1911-MIM freakout could damage them. I started another thread (What's Next for GLOCK?) for the discussion of topics like this because it's starting to seem that for the first time GLOCK isn't invincible while their competition is rapidly improving.

So, MIM isn't a problem for normal people, but reputation is everything.

As to whether the MIM issue is rare, an engineer I know shoots competition with a Kimber 1911, he has had the thumb safety break....TWICE!

In addition, in an article in American Handgunner Magazine they were doing a write up on the Smith & Wesson Custom Shop. They asked the head of the Custom Shop about them using MIM parts, he commented,  "They may be good enough for standard guns, they aren't good enough for the Custom Shop!"

I completely agree with you, that's also the point I was trying to make. I'm huge on avoiding MIM stuff for the same reason that I obsessively clean weapons- it's all about eliminating every chance humanly possible of a malfunction when it matters. While statistically its pretty insignificant if enough people talk about a weapon's problems it can greatly hurt the company.

EDIT- I should clarify, by "normal people" I meant your regular typical gun owner that owns a few, but doesn't do comps or CCW or carry for a living. An XD in the dresser and a double barrel in the closet types. The bubba types that would never get wrapped up in talking about MIM or bore axis or any of the other stuff. It's when the serious folk start connecting GLOCK with MIM that they could have a serious reputation loss, like Kimber had.

FWIW- I have owned and shot many a Glock from my first gen 2 G19 in the early 90s to my latest gen 3 G17 and gen 4 G31 (both purchased after 2011). After tens of thousands of rounds, I personally have NEVER had a malfunction with ANY of them that wasn't directly attributable to an after-market magazine or an after-market part or bad ammunition.

I've never had or personally seen parts failure because if MIM, either. However, perusal of some of the other gun boards will show examples of chipped and rounded off extractors, broken locking blocks and firing pins with the tips broken off. While you did, very rarely and usually on abused guns, hear of these things in the past, the guns with the broken parts nowadays claim to have few rounds through them (IIRC, the first chipped/rounded off MIM extractor I read about was at about 1000 rds). Also, the broken firing pins the instructor in the class I mentioned talked about was from "excessive" dry firing without snap caps. Apparently, it was a real problem for one PD until they made it policy to use snap caps for dry fire practice and Glock had to replace quite a few of them. That was early on in Glock's use of MIM parts, so it may have been a problem with the parts subcontractor. I honestly don't know and the instructor refused to elaborate further. But it shows that MIM parts are not just as good as the older parts. Glock used to say unlimited dry firing was OK and sneered at those that suggested snap caps; now they say to use snap caps for any dry firing other than to field strip. Take it for what its worth. All in the name of cutting costs. Just about everyone in the class I took said that they would willingly have paid more money to keep the old, proven reliable parts, and I know I would, too.

Bub75

MIM concerns me enough that I purchased a WELL WORN Glock 17 Gen 3 with one magazine that was pre-MIM for almost $500 when I could have purchased a NEW Glock Gen 3 with 3 mags for $398 and change, BUT it would have had an MIM Firing Pin, Locking Block, and Extractor.

so why didn't you just buy the $398 gun and replace the parts?

Thank You. I was wondering too.

Cheers!

-JC

I dunno. We asked, he refused to name the Dept. After thinking about it, I was thinking someplace like NYPD, that is large enough to run their own academy. I know when I went through in 1991, we spent a couple DAYS just dry firing. I was thinking that it might just be a situation like this, teaching newbies to shoot by dry firing. Trust me, I'd like the find a Dept that LIVE fires enough to maintain competence, let alone dry fire practice! As a disclaimer, this is my own supposition, no info was given to support this.

Bub75

Where can you get Pre-MIM Glock parts? The ONLY SOURCE I know of is the Apex extractor, I know of no source of non-MIM firing pins or locking blocks.

I would also like to know this. It is absolute BS that Glock changed to MIM internal parts, I would pay more for machined.

Palm Beach Sheriffs Dept Firing Pin FAILURES

Glock's calling it "USER ERROR"

LOL okay...LOL

Even this is no guarantee of success.  I replaced the MIM extractor in my Gen4 G19 with a Lone Wolf aftermarket extractor just to see what happened, it was functioning fine with SD ammo but it liked to choke a little bit when using cheap range ammo.  I went from being tagged in the forehead every once in a blue moon to almost every other ejected casing, even with SD ammo.  Needless to say, I put the MIM extractor back in . I don't own any calipers so I couldn't tell you what the specs of each extractor were, or if any of the other dimensions of the gun were out of spec.

I have never had any problems with my 1.5 year old gen 3 21sf besides the 5% chance of brass to face but I would have paid the extra for a non mim gun. Now I'm searching the used market for an old gen 2-3 g19 instead of going and getting a brand new g19 I had initially planned on

Edited, warning sent. -AJE

Response to last post edited as well -AJE

Thank-you for that link. I really would like to see Glock provide machined parts even if it costs me more. I would jump at the chance to buy a machined striker to put into my Gen 4 17, even though it has been fine so far.

A link from your link says that Glock does not use MIM on any of their firing pins. Can this be verified?

this is how glock did it in america.  every police dept that wanted them, they sold them at wholesale prices.  then all the civilians that all go "me too!" and BAM glock has the market.

i read the book "Glock, the story of america's pistol" (i cant remember now if it said pistol or firearm) and the book pretty much details it like this.  glock bumrushed the american market right when the concept of the revolver was expiring but the market wasnt yet ready to provide semi-auto pistols.

I heard it described as a similar strategy to Android phone devices. Both companies wanted large marketshare as quickly as possible, so they absolutely flooded the market with low-cost devices. Large market share contributed to image as the best since most people associate sales with quality.


If all pistols were priced the same, I'd think a DA/SA would have won out.

It's pretty bad when Glock is TRYING to lie their way out of this. Even Glock trained armorers are confirming the MIM firing pins.

Slightly off topic, but why dont police departments in general do this (would avoid alot of problems I think), I do this on a personal level.

For each officer's personal weapon.  Have them shoot 250rds using issues mags to confirm it functions and "break it in".  The only other time to use this gun/mags to dischage ammo it is for annual requalification or "social purposes".  Gun will see less than 2000 rounds over the course of a decade or two I imagine.  By then it'll be replaced with "the next best thing".

For extra practice, have a couple dozen or so "range" glocks (FDE/green frames) with their own magazines (orange baseplate).  These are the ones that get tortured and abused with tens of thousands of rounds.  Maintain those as needed, but having a worn out not-functioning-so-great weapon that is for practice only isnt a bad thing (teaches immediate/remedial action).

Would seem to solve alot of problems if they did this.  Biggest drawback is the guns must be uniform.  Cant have an officer carry a G17 with 3 dot sights and NY1/- and practice with a G19, glock OEM sights, and standard trigger package.

Ok, good to know they are lying. I haven't taken their armorer course in 3-4 years.

Most police departments rarely shoot as it is. If a gun is going to break, it is not due to wear and tear caused by thousands of rounds.
A dept like mine where people can carry whatever they want in 9, 40, and 45 would be impossible to match everyone's gun.
It would also make the lazy officers that don't maintain their guns even more lazy as far as cleaning.

The problem with MIM is you might get 10,000 rounds before it fails or it might fail on the first round.

This right here. I can tell you from experience, PDs are notoriously cheap. I have a fight on my hands EVERY YEAR to order enough ammo just for qualifications, let alone extra to train with. The admin at most PDs are completely unwilling to buy extra ammo just so an Officer can go shoot 250 rds to make sure his gun works. In fact, with most of the Officers not being gun guys, it may take 2 or 3 years to get 250 rds through it in the first place.

As to range-only guns, not a really good idea. Sure, it is good that the Officer can shoot a perfect score with the range gun; the problem is, there are differences in triggers even in individual Glocks. The range gun will end up having a good, smooth, broken in trigger. What about the gun he has in his holster that has a gritty, creepy, stagey trigger that is heavier than the range gun? A sure recipe for missing a lot. Not to mention, in OH anyway, you are required to document the serial number of the gun you qualify with and God help you if you shoot someone with a gun with a different serial number!

As was posted, MIM Glock parts seem to be like computers; either they break right away due to flaws in the MIM or, if they don't, they have a good chance to go the distance. Just depends on the individual parts. Most cops won't put enough rounds through a Glock in their careers to wear out even MIM parts, so having another gun to practice with is no big deal and would be a financial burden to the PD.

Bub75

The last course I went to they owned up to all of the MIM parts.  The standard corporate literature (just like M&P and Colt) is that MIM is just as strong.  YMMV, but they aren't outright lying about it anymore.

My buddy had to send in a low round count circa 2000 G26 for "flame cutting" in the chamber from duty ammo (Documented in the 9mm+p+ thread here). After hosing him on the barrel and making him pay $125.00 for a replacement, the common MF'ers "upgraded" his machined non-LCI extractor for him free of charge and of course kept the old one even though it was  perfectly serviceable.  I told him to call back and telltale to mail him his old one, but he couldn't be bothered.  GLOCK aint what it used to be. They must of hired that Cohen guy from Sig as a consultant or something.

I have been trying to ignore this thread because of my dislke of any MIM parts in firerams used for serious work. On a cheap range toy where a breakage or failure to work properly would have no serious consequence they MIGHT be acceptable. However on a firearm that is used for serious work, where someones life and/or safety might be on the line they are unaccepetable and should be replaced with quality machined parts.  MIM has no place in any quality firearm....<><....:)