[Marko Kloos]

What's your opinion on 1911 models with external extractors, like the SW1911 or the new Kimber TLE models?

Which extractor style do you favor on 1911-pattern pistols, and why?

[El Tejon]

Some guys like fins on cars, some don't. Gun rags made this trendy. You make your choice, you pay your money.

Not a slave to fashion myself. All guns break, buy several.:)

[Boats]

External extractors are for those that don't or won't understand how their 1911 parts interact and what makes for a quality component. An external extractor is really a manufacturing cop-out on a 1911 because a properly made IE of spring steel, tensioned correctly to hold a round to the breechface, will perform without fail for a good long time, and maybe forever, without any further fiddling. And even in the event of a failure, the owner can swap out and adjust an IE on a 1911 in five minutes or so if the claw is good to go. An EE just mucks with the field serviceable 1911 design through the introduction of non-standard crap.

On a pistol designed from the ground up for an EE, I have no problem with them, but they don't belong on a proper 1911.

That wasn't too pointed was it?:D

[Tamara]

A short pivoting external extractor is probably easier to make without screwing up.

That being said, if I wanted a pistol that's easy to make without screwing up, I'd buy a Glock or USP.

I'm a fan of traditional internal extractors on 1911's mostly for aesthetic reasons; you can't convince me that there's a whit of functional difference between the two. It's all about aesthetics versus ease of quality control.

[cordex]

Internal works for me.

[Delmar]

I chose what I am used to more than anything else-the standard internal long extractor. I haven't had a single problem with the extractor on any Colt I have bought in over 30 years of buying them.
Have to qualify that-my first civilian model was a Combat Commander satin nickel, made in the early 70's and I kept it a long time. Thats the problem-I never seem to have all these problems others have at every turn.
I have two governmnent models and an Officers model, all running the stock cast/mim/bubblegum whatever extractor which came with it, and have well over 100,000 rounds through the 3 total-no issues. Why change what works?

[Dobe]

I choose internal, not that I believe that the internal works any better than the external. I am also not one to get hung up too much on nostalgia. I selected the 1911 for several reasons, one of which is that there are replacement parts all over the world for this model. I like this. Once Kimber placed an external extractor on their 1911, it will only fit a Kimber, not a Smith or Colt, etc. These are now proprietary parts. This takes away from one of the reasons I bought 1911's.

[Correia]

Doesn't matter to me. I've worn out one internal extractor, and replaced it myself. I wasn't to hard to figure out how to tension it with the help of the old gunsmithing section on TFL. :)

Both have their pros and cons.

One pro of the old school internal that nobody has brought up yet, if you 1911 explodes in a catastrophic failure the extractor won't become a secondary missle flying out the side of your gun.

[MJRW]

External extractors make me feel warm and fuzzy. I don't know diddly about maintaining and tuning. I just shoot the things. External extractor seems like one of those things that will make my 1911 work more reliably with less fiddling from me.

[sm]

Classic 1911 internal.

It only takes a second to replace one of mine. Pre-adjusted, already function tested, for that 1911. Minimal tools. Ball point pen, toothpick, stick, paper clip...whatevers handy to depress FP , pull FP stop, use FP, remove extractor, reassemble and go.

I like simple.

[Skunkabilly]

External. Like MRJW said I just shoot the things, it's supposed to be adjusted at the factory.

I don't care how easy or cheap it is to tune an internal, it shouldn't need to be in the first place.

Wow, great a new car, now I have to go get the wheels aligned!!

[harrydog]

Quote:
"I'm a fan of traditional internal extractors on 1911's mostly for aesthetic reasons; you can't convince me that there's a whit of functional difference between the two. It's all about aesthetics versus ease of quality control."



I would agree that some manufacturers have gone to external extractors for ease of quality control, but not all have for that reason. Paul Liebenberg, for example, offers them. In fact he prefers them in his own pistols. Quality control is certainly not an issue with him, nor is ease of manufacture. He is certainly at least the equal of any pistolsmith you care to name. In his custom guns that are for collectors, he sticks with internal extractors, simply because most collectors want to keep the guns somewhat true to their original design (although come to think of it, I believe J. B's original design had an external extractor but the military asked him to change it). In Paul's "working guns" he'll use either, but thinks the external works better. He's a true master of the subtle functioning of pistols, so I tend to believe what he says.
Each design has its strengths and weaknesses. Choose either and be happy.

[Dobe]

Harrydog,
You may very well be right, and I wouldn't want to argue with the gunsmith of his reputation. All I can say is that if I am getting 100% reliability from my internal, what is an external going to offer me? Plus, I can find external extractors anywhere and anytime.

Just a thought, my friend.

[BigG]

Answer to a question nobody asked.

[Handy]

Heavens, if you get rid of the Internal Extractor, you not only lose a part that requires "tuning", you also lose a part to blame when your gun jams:

In gruff voice, "FTF, eh? Well man, have you checked your extractor tuning? Is you breech face properly polished? Bore throated? Ejection port lowered? You GOT TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM, MAN!!"


I'll go along with the aesthetic thing, but to me that also includes all the other modern add-on crap people tend to stick on their 1911s.

Said another way: If your fine changing the hammer, grip safety, safety, mainspring housing and slide release for better function, WHY NOT the extractor? Using the same logic that everyone else likes to use; if a pivoting external extractor is found on 99% of guns, wouldn't that make its superiority obvious?

[Correia]

Handy, short answer. No.

It means that it is far easier and cheaper to machine and manufacture.

As for performance, they both work fine. I've seen really good custom smiths argue for both sytems.

[Dobe]

Handy:
'In gruff voice, "FTF, eh? Well man, have you checked your extractor tuning? Is you breech face properly polished? Bore throated? Ejection port lowered? You GOT TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM, MAN!!" '

Handy,
There are many autos out there that have problems related to extractors. The 1911 is one that can acutally be tuned. I own three 1911's, have yet to need to tune or replace. I have shot 1911's for years. I am sure that one day I will.

And in answer to your last question, I believe that you knew the answer before you asked it. It it cheaper to make and fit the external.

[Grump]

An out-of-spec round or unexpected crud lodges the round in your chamber and it's REALLY STUCK too far out to fire and too stiff to tap-rack-bang?:eek:

External extractors which are pivoted so you can press down at the rear (springloaded area) let you disengage the extractor and open the action. Only then will you have a choice of whether to bang the round out, or drop the slide to "size" it in and shoot it out.

Just stay clear of both the breech and the muzzle if you bang it out. There's a remote but demonstrated chance that you can set the round off. I've heard a reliable report that a benchrester perforated himself with his cleaning rod that way, circa mid-1990s. It was fatal and in front of his wife. Sad.

[Handy]

Grumps got a good one. The only squib I've ever made tied up my 1911 entirely. An external extractor would have helped.



Are you guys entirely sure about the cost thing? The original IE is one piece, and requires nothing more than a hole drilled in the slide. An EE has to have a several milling operations on the slide, a spring and usually another small part. The EE itself is often no less complicated than the 1911 one piece, but does not require a temper.


I think the EE is better. On better quality pistols, the extractor either works perfectly, or the tip is broken off. There is no "tunable" middle ground of questionable performance. Do you really think a Sig, Beretta or Glocks would extract as well or better with an IE?

[Dobe]

Handy,
I think any auto would extract as well with an internal. Why not? It is an extractor, and if it gives 100 % reliability, then no other type can improve the statistics. It can only do it cheaper.

Remember the Win. Model 12's? One of the best pumps ever built. It only had one rail. The rest of the industry is now using two rails. Are those pumps any more reliable? Again, if you are getting 100% reliable results, it is hard to improve upon it.

Now, I realize that not all 1911's are giving 100% reliability. But then there are a lot of makers out there, and there is no 1911 Guild that forces a standard.

It is a good design. I have no problems with external extractors. It is just that I want the original extractors on my 1911. I like to be able to find parts easily.

[Tamara]

Are you guys entirely sure about the cost thing? The original IE is one piece, and requires nothing more than a hole drilled in the slide. An EE has to have a several milling operations on the slide, a spring and usually another small part.

Yes, I'm sure.

If an internal extractor was cheaper to make, then Glock, HK, Walther, Beretta, and everybody else would be using them now.

An internal, tensioned, spring-steel extractor requires a part that is made from good tool steel and tensioned properly in order to work well. An external extractor works even if the extractor hook itself is made from cast dirt and tensioned with a section of recycled ballpoint pen spring. The superiority of the latter over the former lies entirely in the odds of making an un-screwed-up unit from the factory, which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

[harrydog]

QUOTE:
"Harrydog,
You may very well be right, and I wouldn't want to argue with the gunsmith of his reputation. All I can say is that if I am getting 100% reliability from my internal, what is an external going to offer me?"

He never said the internal extractor didn't work well, only that from a purely functional standpoint, he liked the external design better. And by no means is he pushing external extractors on anyone. [B]He's perfectly happy to build guns with internal extractors that I'm sure will function flawlessly. I think the issue is simply that overall, internal extractors are more likely to become improperly tensioned than an external one. But that's just a guess on my part based on all the problems that people seem to have with internal extractors.
I've got two 1911's with internal extr. and both have functioned flawlessly from day one.

[Handy]

I disagree, Tamara. Glock and Sig make pistols that require zero handfitting. Tuning is a skilled operation. An external guarantees that anyone can make an extractor repair with no training. That's big deal when supplying guns to police and military.

And it is a little funny to say that it is purely a cost thing. There are $3000 1911s that use EI, but no one else seems to have bothered regardless of price. Wouldn't the IE have ended up on the Sig 210, P88 or Korth if it had something special to offer?

Berettas can't use this type of extractor. In fact, only Browning lockup pistols can. The 1911 IE is essentially a fixed extractor because the 1911 uses controlled round feeding, which no non-Browning design can.

We're also using the wrong terms, here. We should be calling them flexing and pivoting extractors. A Sig has an internal extractor, after all.



I realize this is an emotional issue. The usual folks are using the standard formula of logical argument:

Rare and not Browning = proof of weak design.
Rare AND Browning = proof of great old world design, but unfortunately, too costly.
:rolleyes:

[Marko Kloos]

Do you really think a Sig, Beretta or Glocks would extract as well or better with an IE?

Uh, all the "classic" SIGs with folded carbon steel slides use internal extractors.

[Handy]

We're also using the wrong terms, here. We should be calling them flexing and pivoting extractors. A Sig has an internal extractor, after all.

Uh, yeah.

[Boats]

Rare and not Browning = proof of weak design.
Rare AND Browning = proof of great old world design, but unfortunately, too costly.


False dichotomy.

NOT RARE and NOT BROWNING=design that works.
NOT RARE and BROWNING=design that works.
RARE and BROWNING=design that works.
RARE and NOT BROWNING=crap shoot.

The "non-pivoting" extractor design is not expensive because of it being more material or whatnot, it is a more expensive operation to install because it requires a precisely drilled hole for a good fraction of the slide, leading to increased machining costs.

What is amusing to me about this "debate" is that if the 1911 extractor were such a problem child it is made out to be by detractors, it would have been changed sometime after 1945 when the government apparently quit buying every one it could get and the demands of the commericial firearms market would dictate that the "superior pivoting extractor" be grafted on. Barring a transition that far back, even then, it would've appeared long before the past year or so. The pivoting extractor and its alleged benefits are hardly a mystery and have been around a long time.

Maybe, just maybe, the spring steel extractor, made and installed correctly, works just fine?

Nah, that's too logical a reason not to change it. The pivoting extractor on the 1911 is, with the apparent exception of some gunsmiths who personally prefer it, a shortcut in mass production. Reliability canards work on the prejudices of those who seemingly accept non pivoting extractors on their 1911 of inferior material coupled with a technical inability to do something about it for themselves.

Anyone with the minimal mechanical courage and an ability to read can tune a 1911 extractor or tell you what a quality one is made of and what it should be able to do. I once deformed the hook on a Beretta 92 shooting a bunch of steel cased Wolf and endured a half hour headache after waiting ten days for a part. I'll take the robust 1911 internal extractor anytime.:D

[John Forsyth]

Internal for me. I have no use for external extractors and California internal safeties.

[Tecolote]

What Boats said. An external extractor is to the 1911 what a designated hitter is to baseball.:cuss:

[Sean Smith]

Well, you know how much time the G.I.'s had to spend tuning their fussy internal-extractor 1911s with nothing put a P3 can opener and a C-rat spoon... :rolleyes:

In all fairness, external extractors are probably more resistant to laborers with Cro-Magnon skill levels, and there is nothing wrong with design for manufacturability. And lord knows my next 1911 is going to look about as traditional as one of Tool's album covers. But 1911 owners do tend to be traditionalists, if inconsistent ones. :D

Funny thing is, the best aftermarket 1911 extractor made is only around $28 retail. Figure how much you'd save if you ordered them in batches of 10,000 :eek: ... in that light, kinda makes it seem silly to cut a corner there on a $600-1,000 product when it is the most obvious way to give Customer Service a workout. Me, I just don't like having parts made of steel that would make a bad FORK in a practical weapon. :scrutiny:

Now that I think about it, this all seems awfully stupid. Tensioning an extractor isn't the proverbial rocket science (or voodoo for that matter) ... they make neat little fixtures that let you tension an extractor down to the ounces of tension you want, with a little poundage guage and everything. As long as the material isn't junk, it isn't exactly a brains operation. Drop it in, turn the knob, read the gauge, pop it out, stick it in. These must be some pretty cheap materials, and/or some breathtaking idiots who can't do that consistently. When we are all post-apocalyptic mutants, we are probaby going to be making 1911s out of spare parts, and easily tensioning extractors with our 13 fingers, but in the meantime the Kimber factory is baffled. Time to go to Yonkers and shoot some process improvement consultants in the skull... assuming the guns work, of course..*

Oh well, at least it is another gun topic to argue about! :evil:

*Just as an example... I liked my Kimber. Really.

[sm]

"I don't care how easy or cheap it is to tune an internal, it shouldn't need to be in the first place.

Wow, great a new car, now I have to go get the wheels aligned!!"
__________________
I beg to differ, then again I'm an old fart at 48 working on curmdgeon status.

Some designs, metals, gadgets and gizmos --just because they are NEW, are not better. Cool will get one dead. Dead is forever.

Some advances are good, if an external extracter is well made from good tool steel, fine. Murphy's Law, it doesn't take dropping a steel case like Wolf into chamber-first, then dropping the slide. Yes its a no no, Yes it happens," Iwannacoolgunvirus" extracter may not break, then again it might. Bad metal, fatique...don't matter, its broke.

1911 with tool steel . Mine have run a long time. I can easily check at any time if it needs to be adjusted, and adjust beforehand. , preventative maintence. I can also easily replace if need, whether afield ( since I hunt with a 1911) range, competition...peace of mind.

Those little springs are a pain to keep squished and in place--oh--they are not always adjusted for replacement...I cursed a , well, certain gun made in Italy...they sure like springs-- everywhere. Had to re-cut the new one and adjust to fit.

Wheels, yeah well, like the guy at the Mgf plant of a major vehicle line once said, " if we could make it any cheaper to increase profits...we would. It is figured in to check out this stuff the first time the vehicle goes to dealer."

All kinds of stuff leave the factory, out of spec.

FWIW I have over 115 K miles on my truck the front end has never been aligned. My olds had almost 200K, front wheels aligned once...I hit an armadillo.

To each his own, I will cover my butt with what works, everytime. Old school, single stack, big slow and no night sights ( will not have them) Oldfartnotintowannacoolgungadgetgizmostuff.

I was taught to shoot without sights, regardless of platform. rifle, shotgun, handgun. I still practice/train this way. I never really warmed up to scopes...but with the basics, I can.

[Preacherman]

I've seen some horrible problems with the new Kimber side-mounted extractor, including - as the worst example - one of their "Team USA" models that was sent to Massad Ayoob for a review. Mas shot the New England IDPA championships with it, and I was on his relay. He lost so much time due to extraction failures that his score was the lowest ever recorded in Master class in that competition! His language was pretty spectacular, too... :D

On the other hand, the Wilson KZ45 side-mounted extractor has always seemed pretty bulletproof and very reliable. This is the sort of extractor I'd like if I had a choice.

The traditional 1911 extractor has never given me trouble, although I'm not a high-volume 1911 user. I do know some folks who have shot multiple thousands of rounds per year in competition with the 1911, and most of them seemed to replace their extractors every so often as a preventive maintenance measure. Makes sense to me...

[MJRW]

I know several "I only shoot and carry 1911" and some well-informed people on generally firearms engineering. I've also read on other forums the same thing. Consistently thus far when asked "what is the weak link on a 1911?" the answer has always been "the extractor." Now, before people go shaking their fists at the blasphemy, every chain has a weakest link. Its just the nature of the chain. So if you can do something to make that weakest link be stronger, other than aesthetics, how is it a bad thing?

My question isn't "yay or nay?" like the original poster. My question at this point is "is an external more reliable than an internal?" I wonder what people have to say about that.

[Handy]

They've already spoken MJRW, and apparently, it isnt'.

[Tamara]

I disagree, Tamara. Glock and Sig make pistols that require zero handfitting. Tuning is a skilled operation. An external guarantees that anyone can make an extractor repair with no training. That's big deal when supplying guns to police and military.

If you go back and re-read my post, you'll realize that you should have started this paragraph with the phrase "I agree" and not "I disagree". ;)

[355sigfan]

I don't care so long as either works as it should.
PAT

[1911Tuner]

...and Boats nailed this one squarely on the head.

A spring steel
extractor, properly tensioned, and with very little tweaking, will
not only cause you to go broke buying enough ammo trying to
make it fail, it allows you to remove it easily for cleaning of the
extractor and its channel. The external extractor is a cop-out.
Smith knows that it's cheaper to make, and easier to get it to
work without the time involved for production-line tuning.

One of the main advantages of the original design lies in the
ability to completely gut the frame and slide quickly without
tools for proper maintenance and repair. The external extractor
negates this feature to a certain degree.

Cheers!
Tuner

[Handy]

Tamara,

Went back and read this:
If an internal extractor was cheaper to make, then Glock, HK, Walther, Beretta, and everybody else would be using them now.

which I disagree with. It's not a cost issue.

[Dobe]

MJRW:
"My question isn't "yay or nay?" like the original poster. My question at this point is "is an external more reliable than an internal?" I wonder what people have to say about that."

If I am not having a problem, how can it be solved?...And I can still find parts anywhere.

[1911Tuner]

An extractor that is machined from tool steel barstock is much
better than MIM or an investment casting, but still not the
proper material for an internal extractor as per the 1911
Colt/Browning design. The right way to go is spring steel.
Unfortunately, there is only one supplier of spring steel
extractors that I am aware of. Cylinder and Slide Shop,
and they have trouble meeting demand at times.

A tool steel extractor can be modified to allow it to act more
like a spring, and less like a rigid piece of steel. I have had very good results with the operation.

I can provide instructions, but it's a little hard to follow without pictures. My scanner is all fugasi...and I don't have a digital cam.

I will post the directions if anyone wants to have a go at it.

Tuner

P.S. Dobe...the answer is yes, if the internal is properly made,
tensioned and installed. The only advantage of a spring-loaded external is that it allows an extractor snapover without as much
stress on the hook than an internal, thus allowing the armorer
more leeway in selecting the optimum recoil spring rate.

[ialevy]

Well, I just got my team match and put a few hundred rounds throught it the other night. Not one failure of ANY sort. It really chucks the brass. I was shooting at my indoor range and the brass would hit the right side of the stall and bounce to the left side of the stall, and then hit me in the head a couple of times! We'll see how it holds up.

FWIW, it seems that the external requires more work to machine and fit than the internal.

[Tamara]

which I disagree with. It's not a cost issue.

Ah, I see. Okay, well trust me that there is at least some cost issue involved, and the big pointer should be the fact that S&W is using one; they never do anything to make the manufacturing process more complex & costly.

However, there is also the fact that it's just easier and more cost-effective to turn out a good, functional external than it is to turn out a good reliable internal. The external is more materials-tolerant, more tolerant of variations in spring strength, and less time & money intensive on the production line. What's not to like?

And it is a little funny to say that it is purely a cost thing. There are $3000 1911s that use EI, but no one else seems to have bothered regardless of price. Wouldn't the IE have ended up on the Sig 210, P88 or Korth if it had something special to offer?

Nowhere have I stated it was purely a cost thing. Nowhere have I stated that the internal extractor "had something special to offer" (other than a clean and finished look on a 1911). As a matter of fact, I've called it out for being a little dated before...

It's still purtier, though. ;)

[Handy]

1911Tuner,

The only advantage of a spring-loaded external is that it allows an extractor snapover without as much stress on the hook than an internal, thus allowing the armorer more leeway in selecting the optimum recoil spring rate
Could you explain this statement? Browning actions are controlled round fed, and the rim is squezzed under the extractor, not snapped over. Berettas, PPKs, etc snapover.



Boats,

The "non-pivoting" extractor design is not expensive because of it being more material or whatnot, it is a more expensive operation to install because it requires a precisely drilled hole for a good fraction of the slide, leading to increased machining costs.

I was just noticing the "precisely drilled hole for a good fraction of the slide" in my cheap Glock extractor system. The extractor tension rod and spring run to the rear of the slide. So if that is the ridiculous "expense" in IE, what's the issue?

[Grump]

can dance on the head of THIS pin?

The external extractor can be built so it does not require driving out a pin or use of any specialized parts to get it out of the slide.

Look at the Glock. No peening an axis pin nonsense. As far as preferring externals, I should have posted a big IF--no staked-in axis pin. I've watched them back out of slides during firing strings. That's a very weak point.

This "controlled feed" thing is a non-starter. Every semiauto pistol I know uses the slide-up-under-the-extractor approach when fed from the mag.

Who wants a pistol so finicky that dropping the slide on a chambered round is a no-no? The combination of design and parts materials SHOULD be robust enough to endure such minor "abuse" as to make it a non-issue.

[1911Tuner]

Howdy Handy,

The explanation is fairly simple. Even though the 1911 was
designed as a control-feed system, most of them will
effect a snapover under certain conditions, most often on
the last round. Among the reasons are:

Recoil spring too heavy for the particular gun....and it doesn't
necessarily have to be over the standard to cause it.

Weak magazine spring not keeping the round under control
until the breechface strips it. I posted a thread on this issue.

Magazine design. The early release design in use now sometimes
releases the round too early and too abruptly, causing the
cartridge to be ahead and above where it should be for a controlled feed.

This is what breaks extractors and also what takes the tension out of them under normal use. John Browning was probably
aware of the tendency, and specified spring steel for the extractor to allow for it....That and the knowledge that some
young conscript would drop a round in the chamber and let the
slide slam on it.

Proof? Go fire a hundred rounds of factory ammo. Pick up the
brass and examine the rims closely. Those little dings and burrs
right on the edge are being kicked up by the front of the extractor
as it snaps over. You reloaders/handloaders have probably
noticed how these can, in time, cause some rounds to be a tight fit in your shellholders.

For a time, Wilson Combat would guarantee reliability only if
Sellier & Bellot ammo was used. I bought a box to try to determine why, since a properly tuned pistol should run well
with any good quality ammo. The reason jumped out at me
in 10 seconds. The rims, while appearing to be smaller than
nominal, aren't. What the difference is that the rear of the
rims on S&B are radiused heavily...which acts as a camming surface against the front of the extractor hook...enabling a
snapover feed with less chance of failure to go to battery, and
less impact stress on the hook.

Hope this clears it up.
Take care,
Tuner

[1911Tuner]

Handy, that thread is titled: Magazines Revisited" It addresses
some of the questions about the extractor snapover issue,
but mainly deals with other malfunctions.

Cheers!
Tuner

[Deuce]

Why should anyone need to worry about availability of parts (read: extractors) if they never fail?

From my personal collection:

Total 1911's: 5
Broken extractors on 1911's: 2
Total all other semi-autos: ~15
Broken, or any other extractor problems on non-1911's: 0

BTW, when I buy a Glock, I don't worry about availability of parts ... I just ... well, actually, it hasn't been an issue.

For me, my experience trumps anyone else's "expert" opinion.

I love the feel/handling of 1911's (whether they're true to JMB or not) and, at this point, I'm willing to give the external extractor a shot.

Also BTW, I notice two prominent threads going these days ... Taurus quality and 1911 reliability. Both seem to have posts from those who have "had absolutely no problems". Yet, one good post points out, the fact that "the fact that the thread exists should indicate what's up".

Still waiting to hear on a mfg'er or whatever for one of those "non-junk" 1911's that a few people seem to have "absolutely no problems with" ... really, I am!

I'll second the advice against Kimber ... but, both my broken extractors were on Colt's.

Someone posted something about "providing a service to newbies for selecting non-junk guns". Well, OK, I'm a newbie ... so please be so kind as to tell me where to get one of those flawless 1911's.

Thanks.

[cratz2]

Internal has worked out very well for me over the past several years and can't see requiring an external extractor on a new gun. but I can see some of the advantages to the external.

[1911Tuner]

Howdy Deuce,

There are a couple of reasons that you've noticed so many
broken extractors of late. One is that they are made of
inferior materials...MIM and investment castings. Machined
steel is better, but still not right. Spring steel is the way to go.
If you want an extractor that you will wear a pistol out trying to
break, install a spring steel extractor.

The other is that many pistols are delivered oversprung. A too
heavy recoil spring causes the pistol to effect a push-feed and the resulting extractor snap over is hard on the hooks.

The manufacturers of the 1911 pistol are aware that they're essentially building a toy...a pistol that will likely see little use.
If a few major police agencies were to adopt the pistol, you
would see better pistols on the market, with very much upgraded
small parts.

Hope this answers some questions.

Tuner

[Deuce]

Thanks Tuner ... that's kinda what I've been hearing here. I'll be sure to get 'em changed.

I'm guessing that there IS NO manufacturer of the GOOD 1911? Just a matter of knowing what's wrong with what you get and fixing it?

So long as that's the case, you're going to see a lot of people questioning the reliability of 1911's in general.

[1911Tuner]

So long as that's the case, you're going to see a lot of people questioning the reliability of 1911's in general.


__________________

Sad, but true. So many new things, but so few are truly good.

Here's a kicker on the extractor issue. If the pistol is truly
mil-spec...and the ammo is truly hardball-spec...you can remove
the extractor altogether, and about half the time, you will
be surprised to see the gun continue to function. I just
saw it happen this morning with an old GI Colt that broke
one of my MIM test extractors. The ejection got weird
all at once, and after I finished the string...3 magazines
full...I decided to check the tension...but there was a quarter-inch
of the extractor missing from the end. I loaded another magazine, and kept shooting it. I got a stovepipe on the last
round. Go figure.

By the way...The MIM extractor passed the 15,000 round mark
today.

Cheers!
Tuner

[Delmar]

Wow-how can a mechanism have so many problems and still be called reliable? I have been packing an early Series 80, small sights and all, for over a dozen years. Not sure what the extractor is made of, but whatever tension it came with from the factory, if any, is probably gone by now, as it normally sits on a case rim in cocked and locked mode. And, 80,000+ rounds later it still delivers as it should. More than half the rounds through it is +P reloads and I use a #20 spring with factory mags and a few shooting star mags too.
My other two 1911's are a stock 1991A1 Government size and a 1991A1 Compact, both with a few thousand rounds each-the little one has nearly 10K through it. What should I be watching for on these where it comes to extractor problems? Does it give any warning at all or do the extractors just give up suddenly?
Also, does a "properly made" extractor help with brass which seems to fly everywhere? Got to hand it to Beretta-my buddies 40 cal Cougar seems to put his brass in one neat pile while mine pretty much covers the area we're shooting in.

[1911Tuner]

Howdy,

If you've got that many rounds through the gun, you can about bet that the extractor isn't MIM. MIM hadn't come into use
at the time that the Series 80's made their debut. It's
likely that yours is machined bar stock. On the earlier 1991
series, some did...some didn't. The way to find out is to
pull the extractor and look at the rear end on the bottom.
If you see a rectangular indentation, it's MIM. Other MIM
small parts will have a small circular indentation. Those
are sprue marks, where the fluid mixture was poured into the
mold....actually forced under pressure.

Most that I've seen break let go all at once, and usually between
the 1,000 and the 1500 round mark, but some have gone beyond that. Colt had been having so many broken ones come back, that
they went back to steel barstock extractors, so any that have been manufactured in the past 8-10 months are steel.

On your 80,000 round gun...I've got a couple of 80's like that.
My Lightweight Commander hit the ground running from the
go light, and I could toss it into a mudhole, leave it for a week,
rinse it off with a water hose, and bet even money that it
would work. Those pistols, when we get one, are pearls
without price.

Shoot straight!
Tuner

[MrAcheson]

Question: What is the difference between tool steel and spring steel?

Answer: Marketing.

Spring steel and tool steel are potentially the same material with different heat treatments. Tool steel is used in tools. Spring steel is used in springs. In general, tool steel is hard so it can cut things. In general, spring steel is flexible so it can retain its shape well. There may be some composition differences between a tool steel or a spring steel, but neither "tool" nor "spring" implies some sort of engineering standard.

With swords, you can tell a crappy blade because they use the words "spring steel" in the advertizement. This means your sword or knife was made from car parts (leaf springs), as opposed to good billet steel of known properties.

So please refrain from talking about "spring steel extractors" as if they were artifacts of eldritch power. They may be well made, but "spring steel" is really just an advertizing mantra not an empirical statement of quality.

[1911Tuner]

Have to disagree there, with all due respect.

While it's true that spring steel is nothing more than good
steel with different heat treatment, there is GOOD spring
steel, and there is springy steel achieved by heat treatment.
Good springs require a little different alloy for a high-grade
spring. I know. I've made them.

Tool steel is not so hard that it will cut other steel. You are
confusing tool steel with high-speed steel...as in lathe tools
and end mills. As it is forged, tool steel generally about
25-27 Rockwell "C" scale. You can cut it with a pocketknife.

I am a toolmaker by trade, and have worked with various grades of steel extensively, so this is not simply an opinion.

Hope this clears it up,
T

[MrAcheson]

Tool steel, etc are terms for steels used in specific applications. As such the materials used for the same application share properties. However if you make a spring out of a weak steel which is wholy inappropriate for its application, it is still "spring steel." It simply a poor spring steel.

Just because something says "spring steel" does not mean it is not utter crap. Likewise tool or high-speed steel. These are not standardized designations that people can be held legally accountable for in terms of quality control, material properties, etc. They are marketing and advertizing terms nothing more.

So when someone advertizes a knife, sword, or 1911 extractor made from "spring steel" be wary because they haven't actually told you anything. That part could be quality or it could be crap.

[1911Tuner]

Not quite there, lad. Much to learn you have. Teach you I will.

You can't take just any steel and make a spring out of it,
poor or otherwise. It takes a certain alloy to make it
work. 1018 steel (cold-rolled) can't even be hardened
unless you case-harden it by heating it to the lower
critical line and covering it up with something that will
add carbon to the surface structure, and will only go about
.015 deep at best.

The alloying elements in steel change the grain structure, and
the properties of the steel after heat treat can vary greatly.
Remove one tenth of one percent of the nickel, chromium,
carbon, or molybdenum from a given lot of 4140, and you
have a very different steel on your hands. It also must
be resurfurized after smelting in order to make it machineable
unless EDM machining is used.

Spring steel has a pretty narrow margin for error and still
remain useful for making springs, and the closer the tolerances
are held, the better quality the spring...and it takes a pretty
exacting heating and drawing process to do it, even with high-grade spring steel. More than that, the spring quality doesn't
so much determine how well it works, but how long it holds
its temper,and how consistent the springs are as to their
shear modulus and loading at compression/flexion limits from
spring to spring and from lot to lot.

As for spring steel extractors...After nearly 40 years of building,
rebuilding, repairing, tuning, tweaking, cussin' and praising
John Browning's masterpiece, I can state flatly that even a
poor grade spring extractor is superior to one machined from
tool steel bar stock. Not that the good-quality bar stock parts
aren't any good. I use them all the time, with certain mods
that make them behave more like a spring, and less like rigid
steel.

Tuner----------->out!

[Handy]

Tuner,

I believe MrArch's point was that the term "spring steel" attached to a product is not a guarantee that the extractor is in fact made of steel the spring industry would use. An extractor maker may feel that the extractor steel is "springy" and label it as such, but that doesn't guarantee a certain alloy or heat treatment.

If we were able to make our own extractors, then your recommendation to create them out of spring steel would be a good one. But we just buy them. There is no spring steel magnet to test them with.


As you or someone else pointed out, the only "spring steel" extractor currently being made is by C&S. If you know better, you should point us at the other brands. Failing that, people are just going to rely on reputation, and some tool steel extractors have very good reputations.

[1911Tuner]

Cylinder and Slide is the only source that I know of for
spring steel extractors, unless you happen to find some
old GI extractors at a gun show. They're getting scarce,
though. I have one that I robbed from a '42 Colt that
wore out two pistols, and is currently showing off in a third.

If I knew of another source, I would share it gladly. My goal is
not to endorse anyone or anything, but simply to give the
best advice that I have to offer, and the benefit of my experience.

And here is an exerpt from his original argument.

So please refrain from talking about "spring steel extractors" as if they were artifacts of eldritch power. They may be well made, but "spring steel" is really just an advertizing mantra not an empirical statement of quality.

Cheers!
T

[Handy]

Okay,

If C&S are the only modern extractors worth using, then saying that would be more informative.

It would be most correct to say: C&S are the only 1911 extractor worth a damn, and it is because the use spring steel.

Otherwise, you're just setting people up to buy junk that says "spring" on the packaging. I think even you would agree that a quality tool steel extractor (Wilson, etc.) is better than some one-off brand that claims spring steel.

[1911Tuner]

I think I did say that...or it may have been on another forum.
I address so many questions that I tend to forget...but for
the record, no vendor, marketing agent, or brand name
advertises spring steel extractors. They state plainly that
they are machined bar stock, or they don't say anything at all.

To claim a certain alloy that is not present would be a violation of
trade laws. i.e They can't say that Raisin Bran has two scoops
unless it really does...Seems like they had a problem with
that a few years back, and had to put two full scoops in there.
I may be a little fuzzy on the details...

Hope this clears it up.
Tuner

[BigG]

What exactly is a scoop, anyway? :D

[1911Tuner]

He said:

If C&S are the only modern extractors worth using, then saying that would be more informative.

It would be most correct to say: C&S are the only 1911 extractor worth a damn, and it is because the use spring steel.

Because there are some very good machined barstock
extractors out there...Wilson Bulletproof...Brown Hardcore,etc...
and to claim that they aren't "worth a damn" would not
only be false, it may be grounds for a defamation suit.
I prefer the Wilson when I can't get a C&S, and have had
very good results.

My point was that the *proper* material for a 1911 extractor
is spring steel...as per Browning's original specifications.
People have been trying to outsmart him for so long, that they
think they really have. Barstock is much better than MIM or investment cast...but still not quite the best. Spring steel
is more expensive to produce, hence the reason for good
parts that will work, but not quite the same.

[Dobe]

Tuner,
Its a good education, and I for one appreciate it. I always appreciate a good discussion, especially when someone can discuss in detail the merits of an argument.

[Sean Smith]

MrAcheson, you might stand a chance in these discussions if you actually had some facts to present, as oppsed to counter-factual cynical grumbles.

Likewise tool or high-speed steel. These are not standardized designations that people can be held legally accountable for in terms of quality control, material properties, etc. They are marketing and advertizing terms nothing more.

Actually, what is and isn't tool steel is quite clearly defined from an objective, metalurgical point of view.

http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/tool_steels/tool.cfm

You can't get much more of a "Standardized Designation" than this (as an example):


AISI S7

Category Steel
Class Tool steel
Type Shock-resisting steel
Designations United States: ASTM A681 , UNS T41907

Element Weight %
C 0.45-0.55
Mn 0.20-0.80
Si 0.20-1.00
Cr 3.00-3.50
Mo 1.30-1.80
V 0.20-0.30(a)
Cu 0.25
P 0.03
S 0.03

Density (×1000 kg/m3) 7.76 25
Poisson's Ratio 0.27-0.30 25
Elastic Modulus (GPa) 190-210 25
Tensile Strength (Mpa) 640 25 annealed
Yield Strength (Mpa) 380
Elongation (%) 25
Reduction in Area (%) 55
Hardness (HRB) 95 25 annealed
Impact Strength (J)(Charpy unnotched) 244 25 fan cooled from 940°C, single tempered at 205°C more

Thermal Expansion (10-6/ºC) 12.6 20-200

http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/tool_steels/show_tool.cfm?ID=AISI_S7&prop=all&Page_Title=AISI%20S7

[BigG]

Thanks for all the good info, especially 1911 Tuner.

"Outsmarting old Moses" What a laugh! Like John Wayne would say, "That'll be the day!" :D

[1911Tuner]

Once again, clear heads have prevailed.

Too often, for one reason or another, people will skim over
someting like this, hit the high spots, find something that they don't agree with, and trash the whole text based on a word or
a phrase. If they would but take the time to read and think
about it carefully and logically, they might learn that they have
misinformed.

Within an hour after my feet touched ground in that awful
place that was Vietnam, an old veteran Gunnery Sargeant spoke.
His words were profound.

"There just ain't any guarantees here. people are gonna die, and
people are gonna get hurt. If you want to have the best chance
of gettin' home alive with all your parts, you will pay attention
to those who know."

Regards to all who took part in this discussion.
Tuner

[MrAcheson]

My point was that the *proper* material for a 1911 extractor is spring steel...as per Browning's original specifications.

But "spring steel" is not a specification. This is my whole point. Specification is an important engineering word. A spec is written to tolerances and is empirically testable. Its legally and contractually binding. If I give you a contract to build a part to a certain spec and you fail to meet it, then I have legal recourse. If its 4140 it better have (check the spec) between 0.15% and 0.30% silicon, otherwise you have defrauded me.

4140 or AISI S7 is a spec for a specific material. Spring steel is just a class. Unless I mention a named spec for a steel I have really told you nothing, you only think I have. It just means I am using a broad class of materials.

Its perfectly possible to make a spring steel extractor out of the wrong spring steel and have it function poorly because of the material. This is especially important with spring steel because companies do "recycle" spring steel (from automotive leaf springs and large industrial springs) and forge it into new products like knives, etc. Many of them function poorly because the original spring parts are not very good quality to start with.

I realize that this is an argument in engineering semantics and I thought it was an important one when the quality of materials kept coming up in terms of MIM. I see too many people waving words like "spring steel" around in this discussion like the magic sword of metallurgy when it is most assuredly not. When it comes down to it, its just a name not a spec or indicator of quality.

Anyway sorry for railroading the discussion off on a tangent. My apologies and back to 1911 extractors.

[Handy]

MrAcheson

I think your point was entirely sound and valid. I don't understand Sean's pointed denouncement either.

Sean, here's "spring steel" from the efunda site:
Sorry, no records were found in our database that match:

keywords: "spring steel"
Please try again...

So, without a standard definition, their can be no quality standard.

And since I hadn't said it yet, thanks to 1911tuner for providing knowledge AND perspective to this thread.

[Sean Smith]

Now that this topic has been rendered a fussy, pedantic mess...

From the C&S site:

The Ultimate Option extractor is CNC machined from the spring steel alloy originally called for in the U.S. Government specifications for the 1911. This alloy produces an extractor with superior wear resistance and is a true spring steel.

http://shop.cylinder-slide.com/clickcartpro/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?usr=50X5895117&rnd=8020186&rrc=N&cip=65.160.239.34&pg=prod&ref=108&cat=43

That is a fairly specific claim, and last I checked nobody else was advertising their extractors as "spring steel," but rather specified which steel alloy (e.g. 4340 for Ed Brown's) they are using. If there was an epidemic of manufacturers falsely claiming their extractors are spring steel, he might be on to something.

[1911Tuner]

Amazin' how these things take off in a whole 'nother direction
ain't it? We started off talkin' about internal vs external
and wound up in Metallurgy 101...

Okay...I'll put it out there. I don't like external extractors on
a 1911. Not because they don't work, but because I like
being able to change one if needed...in the field...in a hurry,
and without tools.

I like extractors made of a high-quality spring steel alloy,
properly tempered, because one so made will wear out
a pistol before it gives up. I have one in service that I have
been doing my level best to destroy for over 12 years, in
3 different pistols without any success...and it was used
when I got it. There has been no loss of tension, and there
has been little measureable wear on the hook. Something
on the order of .0005 inch, as best as I can determine.
A typical sheet of notebook paper is 10 times that thick.

If your pistol is recreational tool or something that you use
to play "Let's Pretend"...any old extractor will do. If you carry it,
and trust your life to it, I strongly advise you to obtain the
very finest small parts that you can find, and fit them to the
gun...or pay someone to fit them for you. The difference in cost
is not worth your life.

Lastly...Metallurgy revisited...Spring steel is loosely defined
as: A steel alloy that has the advantage of being hard without
accompanying brittleness, and which will surpass the elastic
limit of the pre-tempered state of parent alloy.

Howzzat?

Tuner

[harrydog]

It baffles me as to why C&S is the only one making extractors of spring steel. Theirs cost $29.95. Ed Brown's cost $28.95 and Wilson's bullet-proof is $26.95.
Based on that, spring steel doesn't cost much more, or, Ed is ripping us off.

[1911Tuner]

Truth is, the Ed Brown Hardcore...The Wilson Bulletproof,
and the Nowlin Tuff Stuff, are all very good extractors.
I prefer the Wilson for the reason that there is extra
material in the slot that allows fitting to the firing pin stop.
This completely eliminates the extractor's tendence to rotate,
or "clock" in its bore...a common cause of extractor malfunction.
Other than that, it's a coin-toss if I can't get a C&S part.


I would venture to guess that the reason for the pricing is that
the bar stock extractors have a little greater profit margin,
being cheaper to make. Cylinder and Slide is more in the
gun building business, and remains a small enough operation
to prevent the "Tail Wagging the Dog" situation that the others have found themselves in. Their excellent line of parts is
viewed more as a customer service and reliability enhancement
than a source of revenue.

Cheers!
T

[Dobe]

Tuner,
If I were to pick up a couple of these extractors, how difficult would it be to fit one to my Kimber Series I?

[1911Tuner]

Howdy Dobe,

Since I haven't been into a Kimber 2 yet, I'm not sure, but I
think that the series 80 type Colt extractors will work in them.
C&S has spring extractors for the Colt 80's and a call to them
will net you an answer. Pretty sure they've got a toll-free...and you can find'em online.

I keep hopin' that one of the shooters with a Kimber S2 will
come along with a request for a detail strip and cleaning so I
can eyeball one, but most of the 1911 shooters at the range
either have Colts, Springfields, or Series 1 Kimbers. The only
one that I knew personally with a K-2 killed himself with it
trying to clear a stoppage...15 minutes before I got there one
day. (If anybody really believes that the .45 hardball round
is the weak sister as per marshall and Sanow's report, they
should have been there. A witness said that he went down like a truck hit him.)

Rule 2: Don't point it at anything that you aren't willing to see
destroyed.

Hope this helps,
Tuner

[GoldenLoki]

Internal.

Ease of maintenance.
Looks better :)

GL

[Dobe]

Tuner,
That is a Series I Kimber, about which I was inquiring.

Thanks,

Dobe

[bdhawk]

j.m. browning used the internal extractor in the 1911. the hi-power uses an external extractor. if the internal is so dern good, why was it not used in the hi-power?

[Delmar]

It might be that JMB did not add that feature to the Hi-Power as there was another person working on that design after he died, and it is not a pure Browning design. IIRC, JMB was interested in a striker fired weapon too, which would have changed a lot of things on the HP.

[harrydog]

I know that somewhere, in another thread, in another forum, I read that JMB's original design used an external extractor and it was the government who requested that he change it to an internal.
I have no idea of the validity of this claim.

[Delmar]

1911 Tuner-almost scared the fool out of me when you said that Colt went back to bar stock 10-12 months ago. I bought an NIB 1991A1 from a friend 2 years ago and when I saw your post, I immediately ripped it apart. I see no rectangular sprue mark. One thing I have learned from my love affair with Colt's in general is that they will state a parts change on a certain date or serial number, but you will see oddballs occasionally. A friend of mine owns a gun shop in Denton, Tx., and has a stainless 1991A1 with polished sides on the slide and frame. I see them here and there nowadays, but his came that way out of the box 4 years ago. That, and parts which show up sometimes years later which supposedly were discontinued in production. I don't think they throw anything away, but rather keep it somewhere in the shop and will install it when they run out of a certain part on the production line. Hopefully, we have seen the last of MIM extractors!

[1911Tuner]

Browning's original design for the High-Power used an internal extractor much like the 1911 design. Only after a redesign by
FN did the external come on the scene. And yes...the original
was a spring...It wasn't unusual in those days for a part
to be its own spring...and is stll seen today as in the
Mauser-type claw extractor seen on Ruger M-77 bolt rifles
and others of like design.

Good thread...I've enjoyed it.

Tuner

[Handy]

I was looking at the parts diagram on my Sig 225 last night.

It looks like the extractor is a single flexible arm, without seperate spring. In other words, it looks like it works just like a 1911 extractor.

This raises a couple points of interest:

Is a flexible internal extractor prohibitively expensive? No. The Sig Classic line is excellent, but uses many cost saving construction techniques.

Do all IEs require tuning to work correctly? No. There is no Sig extractor adjusting tool or procedure. Obviously, some designs do, but it is not a necessity of the general design.


So IE can be cheap and maintenence/trouble free.

[1911Tuner]

Hmmmm...I'll hafta check that out. I know that the Sigs
are gaining a rep for dead-nuts reliability, but I see so few
around here that I haven't had a chance to look close at one.

Thanks for the tip,
T

[Handy]

"Gaining a rep"

Well, they have been out ONLY 30 years.:D

[1911Tuner]

Gainin' a rep...here. Like I said, we don't get many in these
little towns. heh heh...yep. Beautiful downtown King, NC..
population 335 unless a cow died last night.

Less than 20 miles from Mount Airy...or Mayberry if you're
and Andy and Barney fan....and yep...Mount Pilot is a real
place too. Pilot Mountain in the real-world.

Later on...
T