!911 Ejectors: Differences

A

AKexpat

New member
I am unsure whether to start this thread in this forum or "The Smithy" forum.

(Mods: feel free to move it if that is more appropriate.)

I would like a well-informed opinion as to the differences between 1911 ejectors: 9mm/.38 Super vs .45 ACP, primarily the width. Explanation below is rather windy, and I apologize for that.

I am entertaining the idea of ordering/obtaining a Mech-Tech 1911 .45 ACP CCU top end for my knock-about 1911. (I am not concerned whether anyone likes this "accessory". I do, albeit it is a somewhat spendy whim.)

http://www.mechtechsys.com/1911.php

1911EjectorAssortment_zpsaas3z6yu.jpg


The ejector on the intended frame [an "enhanced" (stripped with the ejector and plunger tube installed from the factory) Olympic Arms frame that I used to make a .22 pistol] does not look like the one the Mech-Tech folks recommend. The nose of mine looks similar to the Colt (top row, 4th from the left) or the WC (fourth row, 3rd from left). As far as I have researched, Oly never made 1911 pistols in any other caliber than .45 ACP.

I enquired Mech-Tech if this ejector would work, and here is the response:

The shape is less important in our CCU than the offset. If it is offset the same as a .45 ACP ejector than it should work. The problem we see is if someone tries to put a 9mm CCU on a .45 ACP 1911 frame. Some makes work and others will drag on the breech block.
Click to expand...

I am assuming he is addressing the width (thickness) of the top of the ejector.

Comparing this (my) ejector with the one in my AMT Hardballer .45 (go ahead and laugh), it is about less than 1/32" wider. (The Hardballer ejector looks just like the one Mech-Tech recommends.)

If I am thinking somewhat correctly, the 9mm/.38 Super ejector would have to be wider than the .45 ACP ejector in order for it to contact the case head upon ejection.

To my mind, this flies in contradiction to what the rep told me.

Keep in mind I have never seen or handled a 1911 Mech-Tech CCU so I may be way off base.

Any comments will be appreciated.

Jim
 
The MechTech rep is correct. Their conversion is engineered to work with an ejector of standard, .45 ACP thickness, no offset. None of the illustrations in your chart tell us anything about the thickness or the offset of the ejectors shown.

If you are using the receiver with a .22 conversion, why do you even have an ejector in it? .22 conversions have their own extractors and their own ejectors. You can set the receiver up with whatever ejector works with the MechTech conversion, and leave it there when using the .22 slide assembly.

I would suggest starting with an ejector that looks as close as possible to the standard, GI ejector (third row, third from left). That's probably what the MechTech was engineered around.
 
Thanks for the info. I left the ejector in place solely to plug what would have been an unsightly hole at the rear of the slide when in battery.
 
The pic is a bit misleading as some of those are for different calibers, but aren't labeled to explain that.

Thanks for the link to Mech-Tech.

tipoc
 
The original long ejector, as installed in the Colt Commander, was also essentially a wider, 9mm part regardless of chambering.
Later, extended ejectors were developed for the .45 Government Model that were longer, but of standard .45 width.
So, it sounds like a Commander ejector is not compatible with the conversion, as it is both longer and thicker/wider than a standard (.45) GM ejector.
The rep's comments appear to be consistent with that.
 
Jim, I like your idea of the Mec-Tech carbine. I got close to snagging a used unit at a show but we couldn't quite reach each other in price though I remember the negotiations as a very friendly exchange and now I wish I had gone the extra mile so I would have a bit more than a fleeting memory of ALMOST buying one.

I don't have much to add and as the owner of an AMT Hardballer Long Slide, I won't laugh at your Hardballer and I know just as you do why you said that. ;)

It has been my experience however that some of the things you find when poking around an AMT 1911 pistol do not always follow the hard line of 1911 specs. Please keep that in mind and hopefully use other 1911 pistols if you need to compare a part or bit and get an idea of what a 1911 part or bit is SUPPOSED to be. This was the long-ago reputation of AMT 1911 pistols and many of them have given gunsmiths fits because of it.
 
Thanks for all of the replies! Very good info, indeed.

I had previously started a thread on the Mech-Tech 1911 .45 ACP CCU

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=560056

but this sear thread seems to have evolved. For those interested in the Mech-Tech 9mm Glock model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwC4M_VInSA

@ Sevens

I don't have much to add and as the owner of an AMT Hardballer Long Slide, I won't laugh at your Hardballer and I know just as you do why you said that. ;)
Click to expand...

Chuckle. I bought it as a used Covina Hardballer with soft steel pins and such. I replaced the (bent) sear pin as well as the thumb safety, hammer pin, hammer strut, extractor, and firing pin with blued carbon steel parts (no mims as that was in 1992), throated the barrel (per the Kuhnhausen bible), and never looked back. It likes to be run wet but no slide rail galling in 20+ years.

Anywho, I'm thick-headed and still wondering:

The shape is less important in our CCU than the offset. If it is offset the same as a .45 ACP ejector than it should work. The problem we see is if someone tries to put a 9mm CCU on a .45 ACP 1911 frame. Some makes work and others will drag on the breech block.
Click to expand...

why a (thinner, no offset) .45 ACP ejector would drag on a 9mm CCU breechblock when I would think the opposite would be true: that a thicker (with offset) 9mm ejector (like mine) would drag on a .45 ACP CCU breechblock (which I desire) because of clearances?

Thanks for the patience of all you folks.

Jim
 
OK, I'll admit to having read it backwards!
There should be extra clearance with a .45 ejector, since it's narrower than a 9mm/.38 Super/10mm/.40 part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top