Having not owned an actual GI 1911 for north of thirty years and currently owning two S&W's with external extractors can somebody take the time to voice their opinions on the pros and cons of externals versus internal extractors. I've got a considerable amount of rounds through both of these and have had zero issues with them. Is one more failure prone than the other etc.?
1911 - Internal vs. External Extractor, Pro's & Con's?
- Thread starter Foto Joe
- Start date
- Status
It seems to me that the primary advantage of the internal extractor (along with its purism) is that it can be removed, cleaned, and re-installed - or replaced - without having to use tools to drive a pin. And they're pretty standard, with the only variances needed for the series 70 versus series 80 firing pin safety.
External extractors, OTOH, seem slight less likely to need "tuning" when they are installed.
External extractors, OTOH, seem slight less likely to need "tuning" when they are installed.
Internal extractors are very reliable when made of the correct metal and properly tuned. The fact that there are numerous YouTube videos of how to tune them should show you have well tuned they usually come from the factory.
External extractors are self adjusting, however they have to be correctly engineered to begin with. If they aren't correctly positioned in the slide and the claw isn't shaped correctly, they will cause feeding failures. A correctly engineered and positioned external extractor is pretty maintenance free.
The best external extractors on production 1911s are generally accepted to be those on SIGs and S&W Performance Center (also recent E-series) guns
External extractors are self adjusting, however they have to be correctly engineered to begin with. If they aren't correctly positioned in the slide and the claw isn't shaped correctly, they will cause feeding failures. A correctly engineered and positioned external extractor is pretty maintenance free.
The best external extractors on production 1911s are generally accepted to be those on SIGs and S&W Performance Center (also recent E-series) guns
Done right both work well. Overall I think external is easier to make work right. Some Kimbers made with external extractors had problems and they got a bad rap for a while. I have 2 S&W 1911's with external extractors that have been the best 1911's I've ever owned. Some don't like them and consider a 1911 with an external extractor to not be a true 1911 because it is not true to the original design.
Both work fine and Browning used both types. So why the internal extractor in the 1911? Because at the time the testing was being done, Frankford Arsenal provided the ammunition and the competitors had to use it. But FA did not have their equipment set up perfectly yet, and cartridge case length varied. Since winning the contract was job one with Colt and Browning (lots of big bucks there) Browning made the firing pin so it would reach out further and the extractor with enough space between the breech face and the hook to handle case length variation. Maybe not necessary, but something worked and both the inventor and the company made TONS of money!
Jim
Jim
Zach S
Member
I thought the internal extractor was designed at the request of the Army?
Anyway, internal extractors are pretty much standard (series 70 or 80), the Para PXT probably being an exception.
There is no real standard for external extractors. Folks normally speak highly of Caspians, Sigs, and some S&W models.
I would do a good bit of research before buying a 1911 with an external extractor, mainly because you only have one source for a replacement part. Internal extractors I don't worry about because I can get a quality replacement from several companies.
If I were to have a 1911 built, it would have an internal extractor.
Anyway, internal extractors are pretty much standard (series 70 or 80), the Para PXT probably being an exception.
There is no real standard for external extractors. Folks normally speak highly of Caspians, Sigs, and some S&W models.
I would do a good bit of research before buying a 1911 with an external extractor, mainly because you only have one source for a replacement part. Internal extractors I don't worry about because I can get a quality replacement from several companies.
If I were to have a 1911 built, it would have an internal extractor.
Lucky Derby
Member
Both work. I think the trend toward external in recent years is a marketing gimick. You know, "new & improved!" kinda thing.
On a related note the Browning High Power switched from an internal to an external roughly 50 years ago. The only problem with either in the BHP is that if you have an old gun with an internal extractor and it breaks, it is nearly impossible to find a replacement. Not a problem with the 1911. At least not yet.
On a related note the Browning High Power switched from an internal to an external roughly 50 years ago. The only problem with either in the BHP is that if you have an old gun with an internal extractor and it breaks, it is nearly impossible to find a replacement. Not a problem with the 1911. At least not yet.
I have both, they both work. I guess I do not have a real preference. As long as they work I am good with it.
Kimber had trouble figuring out the external extractor, but S&W had no trouble with it. By all accounts neither has Sig.
Kimber had trouble figuring out the external extractor, but S&W had no trouble with it. By all accounts neither has Sig.
No, external extractors are not a gimmick, they work quite well. Internal extractors are springs and properly made they will work fine and last a long time. But they must be made from the best spring steel, not from castings or poor quality steel rod. And even if they are made right, they can weaken with time.
So, many makers concluded that, with the reason for the internal extractor long gone, it would be better to use external extractors with coil springs for reliability over the long term. I doubt there is any real difference in cost of the two systems, but the internal extractor is a lot easier to replace, another reason it was used by Browning for the military pistol.
Jim
So, many makers concluded that, with the reason for the internal extractor long gone, it would be better to use external extractors with coil springs for reliability over the long term. I doubt there is any real difference in cost of the two systems, but the internal extractor is a lot easier to replace, another reason it was used by Browning for the military pistol.
Jim
1911 guy
Member
The trick with an external extractor on a 1911 is that is is made to have an internal extractor. If the external is not properly located, it causes a lot of undue stress on the roll pin when the extractor jumps the rim when chambering. Leads to broken roll pin and extractor taking off to parts unknown. Or sometimes landing at your feet. But usually launching into the tallest vegetation in the nearby vicinity.
Some makers, S&W comes to mind, have done it right. Others, like Kimber mentioned by Walkalong, failed in an epic fashion and returned to an internal extractor.
Some makers, S&W comes to mind, have done it right. Others, like Kimber mentioned by Walkalong, failed in an epic fashion and returned to an internal extractor.
It's nice to hear the postitive comments on S&W as that's what both of mine are. The one thing that I was told by a 1911 custom shop in Cody was that S&W won't ship the parts for replacement, you have to send the gun back to them to be repaired. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as they didn't keep it forever. I know that some makers turn work back around in a hurry, others not so much. Hopefully I won't ever find out which one S&W is.
SwampWolf
Member
I agree but I would modify this statement to read: Neither here nor there, so long as the extractor extracts. Looks and "tradition" aside, so long as the brass is expelled properly, I'm ok with the extractor, be it internal or external.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The extractor isn't supposed to jump the rim. It's a controlled feed design. The rim is supposed to approach the breechface and extractor from underneath.
External extractors are fine. They've been working for a long time. I don't care for them on 1911s because I don't like having to fiddle with small pins and springs when I disassemble them.
1911 guy
Member
Quote:
The extractor isn't supposed to jump the rim. It's a controlled feed design. The rim is supposed to approach the breechface and extractor from underneath.
Exactly. But what happens when it isn't done right and the rim gets ahead of the extractor? It jumps and puts stress on the roll pin holding the extractor in the frame. I guess I'm trying to say I agree with you, but don't trust the externals entirely because too many of them AREN'T done correctly. Exhibit A would be Kimber, an otherwise completely competent manufacturer, and their several year long fiasco that saw them ultimately return to an internal.
The extractor isn't supposed to jump the rim. It's a controlled feed design. The rim is supposed to approach the breechface and extractor from underneath.
Exactly. But what happens when it isn't done right and the rim gets ahead of the extractor? It jumps and puts stress on the roll pin holding the extractor in the frame. I guess I'm trying to say I agree with you, but don't trust the externals entirely because too many of them AREN'T done correctly. Exhibit A would be Kimber, an otherwise completely competent manufacturer, and their several year long fiasco that saw them ultimately return to an internal.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
That's a malfunction...usually a magazine problem...and the external, pivoting extractors are much more tolerant of a push feed forcing the claw to climb the case rim than the internal type.
I've always said that you need to learn something new everyday if possible, today's quota has been met.
Since I don't shoot my self defense ammo as a matter of habit, the gun gets unloaded each time I make a range trip which can be twice per week when I'm unemployed like now. Given that I don't like to constantly cycle the same round into the chamber from the magazine and risk a setback, I'd taken to hand setting the first round into the chamber then cycling the slide closed with the round already chambered. Having just read the above quote that habit will cease immediately as I've probably been stress testing the roll pin on the external extractors for a while now.
1911Tuner said:
Since I don't shoot my self defense ammo as a matter of habit, the gun gets unloaded each time I make a range trip which can be twice per week when I'm unemployed like now. Given that I don't like to constantly cycle the same round into the chamber from the magazine and risk a setback, I'd taken to hand setting the first round into the chamber then cycling the slide closed with the round already chambered. Having just read the above quote that habit will cease immediately as I've probably been stress testing the roll pin on the external extractors for a while now.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Loading the chamber ahead of the slide without damaging the extractor is possible, provided both the angle on the nose of the extractor and the channel location are to spec. It's not the extra deflection that causes problems. It's the impact by the slide that does it.
Ride the slide down slowly until it stops against the case rim...then press the slide forward until the claw snaps over. If it refuses to go, you know that the extractor nose or the channel is out of spec. It should offer a little resistance, but it shouldn't require muscling it over.
I don't do this, by the way. All I do is pass along the suggestion to try it. I prefer Walkalong's method of not letting the slide feed the top round at speed unless I plan to fire the gun immediately. Note that going too slow will set up a misfeed, and you'll have to start over. It works much better when the magazine has tapered feed lips...and the full-tapered GI "hardball" type feed lips work the best of any.
Ride the slide down slowly until it stops against the case rim...then press the slide forward until the claw snaps over. If it refuses to go, you know that the extractor nose or the channel is out of spec. It should offer a little resistance, but it shouldn't require muscling it over.
I don't do this, by the way. All I do is pass along the suggestion to try it. I prefer Walkalong's method of not letting the slide feed the top round at speed unless I plan to fire the gun immediately. Note that going too slow will set up a misfeed, and you'll have to start over. It works much better when the magazine has tapered feed lips...and the full-tapered GI "hardball" type feed lips work the best of any.
I was assembling several M1911s 12-13 years ago and decided to try an external extractor on a Caspian slide. It works fine.
I've never had any problems with the internal extractor and I like the look better.
As with anything, if done right, it works well, if not, well…
I've never had any problems with the internal extractor and I like the look better.
As with anything, if done right, it works well, if not, well…
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, they don't have to be properly tuned as long as they're in-spec. It's mostly determined by the right magazine and the proper technique. I do it with unaltered USGI pistols...new Colts...and Norincos all the time. Most Springfields will allow a slow feed with the right magazine.
All the older, pre-Mil Spec Springfields would...again with the right magazine. Using the parallel-lipped "Wadcutter" magazines can be a little persnickety on slow feeding.
Zerodefect
member
I've never had problems with Kimber extractors. I prefer the Glock style extractor, and all of the nasty Kimbers I fixed, never involved the extractor.
But since the extractor is not one of the 1911's problems, I don't see the point. Internal extractor for me.
But since the extractor is not one of the 1911's problems, I don't see the point. Internal extractor for me.
The 1911 was intended to feed from the magazine, but it should be able to accept chambering a round and letting the slide drop WITHOUT damaging the extractor. The Army required that for the simple reason that if the magazine(s) got lost or damaged, they didn't want the gun to become a club.
The Mauser and Springfield rifles were also required to allow chamber loading for the same reason if the magazine were damaged.
Jim
The Mauser and Springfield rifles were also required to allow chamber loading for the same reason if the magazine were damaged.
Jim
- Status
