Re-Designed Extractor in Older Gen LCP

S

SIMP

New member
I recently decided to add another LCP to my pocket pistol collection. When I started looking at it I noticed that something just seemed different about it. I first noticed the roll pin holes milled in the slide looked off. Then it jumped out to me how much longer the extractor was then my previous models. I'm attaching a photo of the slide from my newest purchase and a stock photo of the similar 10th anniversary model. I wonder what brought this design change. Any thoughts? As long as this version has been out, it just surprises me that they would make a change this late in the game.

My recent LCP slide:
attachment.php



10th Anniversary Model:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • lcp slide.jpg
    lcp slide.jpg
    627.7 KB · Views: 1,225
  • lcp 10th.jpg
    lcp 10th.jpg
    709.4 KB · Views: 1,215
After looking at it again, it looks like the new extractor is lower than the original, and I'd guess the new extractor is much easier/cheaper to make since it looks like it may be square instead of angled (when viewed from the front).
 
Hunh my LCP Max has the long extractor also. Didn’t notice it before.

Have never had extraction problems with my LCPs, in probably 3000 rounds total.
 
Someone smarter than me can correct, but the LCPII 22lr first came with a long extractor? Then the others IIs updated too?

But that's a first for me seeing it on the Gen2. Not terribly surprising because I don't know if people are buying Gen2 like the II. Like Harry Holster's review, I like the LCP Gen2 better than the II.

The Mayodan vs Prescott made...I'd still trust the Prescott short over even a true improvement part change Mayodan given how rocky that roll out was for the NC made LCP Gen2.

When an LCP blows out the extractor, Ruger (at least if online is a gauge) returns a new slide. Interesting to see if it's long extractor forward?
 
If you look at Ruger's website, the standard LCP is displayed with the original extractor, but the LCP II (.22LR) and the MAX are shown with a longer pivoting extractor.

The description of the MAX includes this line:
Improved magazine feed lips, feed ramp, extractor, and barrel cam geometries.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ruger engineers decided it was easier for manufacturing to drop in the longer, differently designed extractor.

Will it eventually be included as a revision in the original LCP? No clue.
 
The lcpII that isnt a double stack is closer in width to the P365 than the gen2. Total and percent dif.

Given the role and that the trigger on the II isnt that great either, I wonder why the II is bought unless you need the new fire design. The grip on the gen2 while skinny is more comfy to me. II is too wide and blocky. Just off feeling, and again, close in width to the p365.

Harry Holster gen2 vs II says it better.

I wonder if it is more parts common than a real upgrade. Though the extractor is surely the weak link. That or the odd trigger bar.
 
Last edited:
wild cat mccane said:
The lcpII that isnt a double stack is closer in width to the P365 than the gen2. Total and percent dif.

Given the role and that the trigger on the II isnt that great either, I wonder why the II is bought unless you need the new fire design. The grip on the gen2 while skinny is more comfy to me. II is too wide and blocky. Just off feeling, and again, close in width to the p365.
Click to expand...

The LCP II is nowhere near as thick (or comparable in any dimension really) as a P365, are you sure you aren’t confusing it for the LCP Max? The LCP and LCPII aren’t much different in size.

Also, the trigger on the original LCP, even the Gen2, is horrendous, and probably one of the biggest complaints. The LCP II trigger is a huge improvement.
 
Captains1911 said:
I’m surprised Ruger is still producing the LCP. Why would one prefer it over the LCP II?
Click to expand...

Because someone might prefer the DAO action to the SA-ish of the II?

Then again, I immediately found the DAO action to be something to which I easily acclimated, considering my penchant for DAO J-frames. Even the original version was easy to run. The revised version (improved trigger/hammer geometry and slightly lighter trigger press) was even better.

If I'd wanted a striker-fired .380 I'd have gone for the G42. As it was, the original LCP (in both versions) appealed to me in the hand (and on the range) more than the only other real contender (by a major maker), which was the first version of the S&W Bodyguard .380 (before it became part of the M&P line). The LCP was just enough smaller to make it preferable for my pocket-holster needs.
 
fastbolt said:
Because someone might prefer the DAO action to the SA-ish of the II?

Then again, I immediately found the DAO action to be something to which I easily acclimated, considering my penchant for DAO J-frames. Even the original version was easy to run. The revised version (improved trigger/hammer geometry and slightly lighter trigger press) was even better.

If I'd wanted a striker-fired .380 I'd have gone for the G42. As it was, the original LCP (in both versions) appealed to me in the hand (and on the range) more than the only other real contender (by a major maker), which was the first version of the S&W Bodyguard .380 (before it became part of the M&P line). The LCP was just enough smaller to make it preferable for my pocket-holster needs.
Click to expand...

Don’t fool yourself, they’re both DA triggers, the only difference being the LCP II is a bit more tolerable. Comparing the LCP II trigger to that of any SA trigger is laughable.

In regards to the G42, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
 
Getting away from the new extractor on the Gen2, but the II is certainly more single action.

We know this too because it has Ruger's "Secure Action" with a hammer catch where LCP/Gen2 is part #27 block.
 
I recently decided to add another LCP to my pocket pistol collection.
Click to expand...

Are you sure your "recent LCP" pic in post #1 is a plain Jane LCP, and not a MAX or other variation?

I looked on Ruger's site and the regular Gen2 LCP's pictured have the same old extractor, as in your pic of the 10th Anniversary model. It's possible that they didn't update the pics, and left the old ones.

I called their CS and got an extractor, plunger, and spring because I wanted spares in case they stopped making them. The CS guy didn't know anything about the "new" extractor, and checked with his manager. He said the manager said the parts were the same, and the ones I received look like the old parts, so they'll work with the old slide.

Here are two pics from Ruger's site which show the longer extractor. Note that one is a LCP II .22LR, and th other is a LCP MAX (with bigger sights than the slide in your "recent LCP" pic.
 

Attachments

  • LCP II .22LR.jpg
    LCP II .22LR.jpg
    319.1 KB · Views: 34
  • LCP MAX .380.jpg
    LCP MAX .380.jpg
    340.2 KB · Views: 32
Ruger CS repaired my 10th anniversary model for a bad extractor. New slide and barrel. Looks like the OP’s pic of the 10th anniversary model.
 
Ruger CS repaired my 10th anniversary model for a bad extractor. New slide and barrel.
Click to expand...

It may be cheaper for Ruger to do that than to remove and replace the extractor parts.

Any idea how many rounds you had through it before it broke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top