[Gpruitt54]

I am building out a Glock 23 slide from Rock Slide. In the parts set I bought there is a plastic liner that gets drifted into the channel where the Striker lives. What does the liner do, and how important is the liner to the proper function of the mechanism? What happens if one forgets to drift the liner into the channel?

 

[FullClip]

Here an older discussion on the same issue...it my help. The liner is there for a reason. I'd make sure to put it in.

Do you need a striker channel liner?

How important is the striker channel liner, and what advantages do you get having it in your gun VS not having it in your gun? Thanks Part I am talking about:

www.glocktalk.com

 

[Zerodefect]

It protects the striker when you cure and dry out the slide in an oven.

 

[indivi]

The channel liner is one of the dumbest and most obsolete parts on a Glock. I'm sure there will be some others who will disagree, but I'd ask them to consider the fact the liner is completely absent on the older Gen 1 guns, and noone ever had an issue. The 42/43 and 43X/48 also do not have a channel liner, and noone is having issues with those. Rarely do you have to even fool with them unless you are refinishing the slide or assembling it for the first time.

But you still have to use it if your Glock had one to start with or the gun likely will not work, which the 23 does. It's there to provide self lubrication for the striker assembly. Without it on a slide that requires it, the striker will not line up correctly with the breechface, resulting in possible damage to the striker.

IMO, I'd recommend a steel liner. Super easy to install and remove by hand and without damaging it, a little bit of friction with a dry bore mop and it comes right out, and can shrug off the high heat of curing if you ever have your slide refinished, whereas a plastic one can warp and you have to destroy it to remove it. Also works wonders for the trigger.

 

[ashwednesday5]

Some slides I bought confounded me for a bit because they had the liners pre-installed.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[DrLogik]

Interesting topic. I would install the channel liner. The gun is designed to have one.

I thought the purpose of the channel liner was to lessen the firing pin spring and spring cup wear and to eliminate the need for lubricant. I know Glock recommends that we do not lubricate inside the firing pin channel. Doing so can gum things up and cause misfires as I recall.

If it is a useless part, one would think Glock would sunset that part from it's latest guns. Do they have plans to do that? I just looked in my G43 and it sure looks like there's a channel liner in there.

The way I look at it is, Glock's are a very rugged, ridiculously reliable and fairly accurate weapon. It appears to me that Glock puts a part in their guns for a reason. I wouldn't consider running a gun without all of the required parts in it, no matter what the brand.

Question for the Glock Armorer's out there, has Glock come out with any kind of an official statement on that part lately?

 

[indivi]

Interesting topic. I would install the channel liner. The gun is designed to have one.

I thought the purpose of the channel liner was to lessen the firing pin spring and spring cup wear and to eliminate the need for lubricant. I know Glock recommends that we do not lubricate inside the firing pin channel. Doing so can gum things up and cause misfires as I recall.

If it is a useless part, one would think Glock would sunset that part from it's latest guns. Do they have plans to do that? I just looked in my G43 and it sure looks like there's a channel liner in there.

The way I look at it is, Glock's are a very rugged, ridiculously reliable and fairly accurate weapon. It appears to me that Glock puts a part in their guns for a reason. I wouldn't consider running a gun without all of the required parts in it, no matter what the brand.

Question for the Glock Armorer's out there, has Glock come out with any kind of an official statement on that part lately?

The exploded diagram for the 42/43 in the Glock manual can confirm that there is no channel liner.

 

[DrLogik]

"The exploded diagram for the 42/43 in the Glock manual can confirm that there is no channel liner. "

I guess maybe it's because there's not a lot of room in there. Maybe what I'm looking at is just how the slide is machined.

 

[JD_Williams1570]

I am building out a Glock 23 slide from Rock Slide. In the parts set I bought there is a plastic liner that gets drifted into the channel where the Striker lives. What does the liner do, and how important is the liner to the proper function of the mechanism? What happens if one forgets to drift the liner into the channel?

If the liner is not installed the striker may move inside the channel biasing it away or toward the cruciform. This can cause sear engagement problems-lack of or to much.


#prettysurethatsbroken

 

[cciman]

Keeps the striker centered simply, minimizes tolerance slop of the striker floating inside the channel - low maintenance, cheap, not hurting anything ....Why NOT?? Perhaps reduces wear on a striker reducing the sloppy movement in and out of the breech hole??

Proven to work fine invisibly (almost ignored).

Why not?? If it works, don't fix it. Leave it be, don't mess with it.

It is like why brake pads have those cheap flimsy little metal caliper clips which are a pain in the ass to position and install correctly-- certainly the pad will work just fine without the clip--- do you really need it? You don't really need them, until you do.

 

[indivi]

I guess maybe it's because there's not a lot of room in there. Maybe what I'm looking at is just how the slide is machined.

I'm not sure one could even install a channel liner in those models if they tried, but in my 48 it also looks like there is due to the way it is milled but if you shine a light in you will see the metal walls.

With regard to the OP's Glock, they will definately need to install one. Not hard, just use the tool and it takes less than a minute and not something the OP is likely ever to deal with again.